PARMATMA BIND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 27.5.2004 and entire consequential proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 85A of 1984 pending in the Court of Sri E.N. Prasal, Fast Track Court, Munger.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Suresh Mandal, had given a written statement before the Sub -Inspector of Bariyapur police station on 18.8.1981 alleging therein that while his uncle, Lakhan Mandal and co -villager Bala Mandal were working at their field on 17.8.1981, the accused persons came there and abducted the aforesaid persons for murder. Thereafter a case was instituted under Sections 364/34 of the I.P.C. Charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with other seven accused persons. The police papers, in compliance with the mandate of Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allegedly were never supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is being tried by the learned Fast Track Court without following the mandate of Sections 207 and 209 of the Code. The case of the petitioner was separated on 22.2.1984. This matter was raised in the learned court below, i.e., the Fast Track Court, Munger, namely, Shri B.N. Prasad. In the order dated 27.5.2004 the learned Court below found that the petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the charge has already been framed and steps have been taken against the witnesses to produce the prosecution witnesses before the Court. The witnesses were also being examined. It appears that no separate file was opened for the ten accused persons who were absent and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. Thereafter in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Munger this petitioner, namely, Parmatma Bind, appeared. The trial of other accused persons were separated and charge was framed against this petitioner, namely, Parmatma Bind under Section 364/34 I.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the witnesses were being examined. This petitioner was on bail. The learned court below did not find any irregularity and hence rejected the prayer of the petitioner.