SIDHESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11-8-1977, by which he has summoned the petitioners as accused to face trial under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points which have been raised in this case it is necessary to state some facts. Opposite party No. 2, Madan Prasad, lodged a petition of complaint on 29-6-1974 against six persons, including these petitioners, alleging offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Investigation was taken up by the police, and charge-sheet was submitted against three persons, but not these three petitioners, on 25-7-1974. On 27-9-1974 the learned Magistrate took cognizance against those three persons and discharged these petitioners; and the case was transferred for trial. The trying Magistrate framed charges against the three persons, against whom cognizance had been taken, on 8-9-1975 under Sections 323 and 324 of the Penal Code. After that, three witnesses were examined by the learned Magistrate. After the examination of these three witnesses on 1-6-1976, opposite party No. 2 filed an application for summoning these three petitioners also for. trial because allegations had also been made against them by those three witnesses. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 11-8-1977, has summoned the petitioners for trial along with the other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous application.

(3.) learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the witnesses who have been examined by the learned Magistrate were also examined by the investigating officer, who obviously did not rely on their statements and, therefore did not submit any charge-sheet against them and the learned Magistrate on the same material has wrongly summoned the petitioners for trial. This contention, in my opinion, is without any substance and must be rejected1. Those three witnesses may have been examined by the investigating officer who, for some reason or the other, did not submit charge-sheet against these petitioners. That does not mean that the Magistrate had and power to summon these three persons when specific allegation had been made by the witnesses against them.