RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 4 -7 -1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1987 permitting the holding of a test identification parade on the application of the Investigating Officer. Since the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge was passed in a trial pending before him, instead of admitting the matter, the parties were directed to make detailed submissions at the admission stage itself so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State have been heard at length and this application is being finally disposed of by this order.

(2.) SESSIONS Trial No. 196/87 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. The case relates to the murder of late B.P. Sinha, a prominent labour leader of South Bihar. The petitioner along with others is charged of having committed the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed and the prosecution had examined several witnesses before the Trial Court. At this stage, on 4 -7 -1988, an application was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Investigating Officer, before the Sessions court submitting that the prosecution proposes to hold a T.I. Parade on the 11th of July, 1988 and in that connection accused Ramprabesh Dubey and Jugal Singh may be directed to be present on 11 -7 -1988 at 10.30 a.m. It was also prayed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate maybe directed to nominate a Judicial Magistrate for the purpose. It appears that the petitioner was in custody but accused Ramprabesh Dubey was on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed time for holding T.I. Parade in regard to accused Jugal Singh. He also directed Jugal Singh to appear personally for facing the T.I. Parade on 11 -7 -1988.

(3.) AT the outset, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that such an application was not maintainable since it was really in the nature of a revision petition against an interlocutory order. He further objected on the ground that the application filed by the Investigating Officer was for holding a T.I. Parade in respect to Jugal Singh and not the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, was not aggrieved. Moreover, the T.I. Parade had already been held and if the petitioner was really aggrieved by the order dated 4th of July, 1988, he ought to have moved this Court earlier against that order.