RAM LAKHAN PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application a prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Cr. Rev. No. 135 of 2006 whereby in dismissing the revision he has confirmed the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Narkatiagunj at Bettiah, in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993, Trial No. 224 of 2005 (State vs. Ram La khan Pandit & Ors.) whereunder he had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge. An additional prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways). This unfortunate case which has dragged on at a lackadaisical pace for the past 15 years has a chequered history which may be noticed with relative brevity. Persuant to a raid in the premises of Shankar Rolling Mills, Bairwa, under Motihari (Mufassil) P.S. on 3.3.1993 and subsequent recovery of several pieces of railway property, a seizure list was prepared and handed over to the petitioner herein and on the basis thereof followed by an enquiry, Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993 under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, was registered against the petitioner and four others. It appears that four witnesses were examined before charge. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge as no evidence had been adduced so as to justify the framing of charge against him. The learned Magistrate holding to the contrary by order dated 28.2.1997 directed the accused persons to be physically present in Court on the next date for framing of charge. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner impugned the said order in Cr. Rev. No. 60 of 1997 which was allowed by the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah who set aside the said order by his order dated 1.4.1998 and remitted the case back for fresh orders on the ground that no reason had been assigned by the Court below to form his opinion.

(2.) IT appears that on remand, the matter was reheard and order was passed on 27.5.2006 again rejecting the petition under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and directing the accused persons to be physically present in Court for framing charge. The order was again impugned in Cr. Rev. No. 135 of 2006 and the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah by his order dated 11.1.2007 dismissed the revision.

(3.) IT is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court that at the stage of framing charge or disposing of discharge petitions, the trial Court cannot weigh the materials but it must see whether there is a prima facie and sufficient material to proceed against the accused and for this the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the materials to arrive at a conclusion that it will not lead to a conviction. It was also held that at this stage the Court was not required to meticulously judge or consider defence documents. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lalu Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2005(3) PLJR 204(FB) went to the extent of holding that in cases only of discharge reasons were required to be assigned but no reason was required to be assigned in case of refusal to discharge.