RAM NANDAN YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application IS directed against an order of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, refusing to make a reference to this Court.

(2.) One Ramchanar Sao lodged an information before the police about a dacoity said to have been committed in his house. The petitioners and one Tengar Beldar were named in the first information report. On the 24th July 1962, the police, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Tengar Beldar only under the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and final report in respect of the other accused including the petitioners on the ground, it is said, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that the names of the petitioners had been mentioned in the first information due to enmity. On the same date, Mr. Ramyash Prasad Singh the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna directed that the record be put up on the 31st July 1962 along with the case-diary for consideration as to whether a prima facie case had been made out against any of the other accused persons including the petitioners- On the 31st July 1962, the case-diary was perused and the learned lawyer for the State as also the learned lawyer for the accused persons were heard by the learned Magistrate and the case was adjourned for orders till the 9th August 1962. On that date, he passed the following order :

(3.) Mr. Akbar Imam, who has appeared for the petitioners, submitted that the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mr. Ramyash Prasad Singh, had no power to call for a charge-sheet, as such an action would amount to an interference with the investigation by the police. It is well settled that the functions of the judiciary and the police are independent and each is left to exercise its own function, subject of course, to a right of the Court to interfere in an appropriate case. The question, however, in the instant case is whether the order of the 9th August 1962 calling for charge-sheet amounted to an interference with the investigation, that is, with the function of the police. In my opinion the answer to this question is in the negative The police, in the instant case, had discharged its function completely by submitting a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, no part of the investigation was pending before the police Apparently, on seeing the report under section 173 of the Code, the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Mr. Ramyash Prasad Singh, passed an order on the 24th July 1962, that the record he put up on the 31st July 1962 along with the case-diary for consideration as to whether a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners With that object in view, the learned Magistrate heard the lawyer for the accused persons is well The petitioners could, therefore- have no grievance that the learned Magistrate decided to call for a charge-sheet against them. It will be noticed Prom the order dated the 9th August 1962, that the Magistrate perused the case-diary, and, having heard the learn ed lawyers of both sides on the earlier date he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against all the accused persons named in the first information report, namely the petitioners, for being summoned before the Court. Thus, it cannot be said that, by passing this order, he was interfering with the function of the police