HAJI MINHAJUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/ S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code'). It is directed against the order dated 25-7-1989 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1988/11 of 1989 refusing to discharge the petitioners for the offence u/Ss.307 read with S.34 of the Penal Code.

(2.) It appears that opposite party No. 2 had lodged a fardbeyan on 31-8-1987 before the S.I. of police, Sasaram P.S., on the basis of which Sasaram P.S. Case No.453 of 1987 under Ss. 341,324 read with S.34 of the Penal Code was instituted. In this case, it was alleged that petitioner No. 3 had assaulted the father of the informant with fists on his nose. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 2 had aimed a knife blow at the father of the informant hitting him on the wrist of the left hand. The police after investigations submitted charge sheet u/Ss.341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary took cognizance of the offence u/ Ss.341,323, 324 and 307 of the Penal Code by his order dated 6-10-1987. This he did without applying his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of this case. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Session and was ultimately transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1988/ 11 of 1989.

(3.) Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, petitioners filed a petition on 24-7-1989 praying therein to discharge them so far as the offence under S.307 of the Penal Code was concerned, since there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them for the said offence. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the order dated 25-7-1989 was pleased to frame charge against the petitioner also under S. 307 of the Penal Code which amounted to rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge under this section. The petitioners have contended that in this impugned order dated 25-7-1989 the learned trial Court had not discussed any evidence, circumstances or materials which led him to form an opinion that there was a ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed an offence also under S.307 of the Penal Code which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is well settled that it was incumbent on the Court concerned to pass a speaking order giving reasons for passing it so that the superior Court may be in a position to scrutinise the correctness and legality of the same in accordance with law. Since the same has not been done, the impugned order is perfunctory, vague, vitiated and on this score alone, the order passed by the learned trial Court is fit to be quashed. Hence this application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25-7-1989 and for the discharge of the petitioners of the charge under S.307 of the Penal Code.