BHUTKA GOPE Vs. ANUPLAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the accused in a criminal trial is directed against an order dated 8-3-1965 passed by a Magistrate, whereby, he has decided to follow the procedure of a complaint case, as provided in Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because cognizance of the offence was taken on a complaint. The petitioners went in revision to the Sessions Judge and an Additional Sessions Judge has rejected it.

(2.) It appears that, on 11-3-1964, one Sadanand Mishra lodged a first information report before the police under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that these petitioners had formed an unlawful assembly, and some of them caused some injuries with deadly weapons to the informant and three others. The case was pending investigation by the police.

(3.) On 20-3-1964, however some nine days after the holding of the first information report by Sadanand, Anuplal Sah, who is the sole opposite party in the present application, filed a complaint before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate against the petitioners in relation to the same occurrence, in respect of which a first information report had been lodged earlier by Sadanand. In this complaint, however, there was also a case of dacoity made out, said to have been committed in the house of the complainant, Anuplal Sah. On the complaint of Anuplal Sah, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance only of the offences under Sections 448 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code on 27-4-1964, and transferred the case for trial to the court of Shri B. P. Sinha, Magistrate first class. The trial of the case had not proceeded, when, on 19-9-1964, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, in the case, which had been instituted on the first information report of Sadanand, and, on the same day, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of this case also and transferred it to the court of the same Magistrate, Sri B. P. Sinha, for disposal. On a petition filed by the petitioners accused, on 8-3-1965, the two cases were amalgamated by the learned trial court and order to be tried together.