BIDHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These nine petitioners herein who have been arrayed as accused in Banmankhi (Janki Nagar) P.S. Case No. 55/05 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 284 of 2005) through this application have prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Criminal Revision No. 377 of 2005 whereby while setting aside the order of cognizance dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, has directed for passing fresh order of cognizance, challenge is also to the revised order of cognizance dated 1.2.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the light of the directions given in the revisional order.

(2.) On Kailash Yadav filed Complaint Case No. 284 of 2005 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, alleging commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 379, 307 and 323 of the I.P.C. and sec. 27 of Arms Act at the hands of.the named accused. The said complaint petition was duly transmitted to the concerned police station under sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof Banmankhi (Janki Nagar) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2005 was registered. After due investigation the police submitted chargesheet only against six of the named accused for offences under sections 147, 148, 323 I.P.C. and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on persual of the records and case diary took cognizance thereunder against those six persons on 18.7.2005. However, the complainant- Opposite Party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 377 of 2005 before the Sessions Court at Purnea, impugning the order dated 18.7.2005 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge without hearing the petitioners passed orders at the stage of admission on 28.12.2005 setting aside the order of cognizance on a finding that none of the witnesses named in the complaint petition had been examined by the Investigating Officer who had also not cared for the supervision note of the Inspector of Police who had found in paragraph no. 46 of the case diary the case true for the offences under sections 307 and 379 I.P.C. also.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to submit that the learned Sessions Judge had passed the impugned order without appreciating the entire things and circumstances of the case and also without hearing the petitioners and had erroneously come to a finding by relying on paragraph no. 46 of the case diary which was the observations made by the Inspector of Police in his supervision note. The learned Sessions Judge had, accordingly, set aside the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, obvious of the fact that the supervision note, not being a part of the investigation is not included in the police paper and being a confidential official documents exchanged among the officials as information/recommendation, could not be relied upon.