SAHEB MIAN @ KALIMUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by Shri M. Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, in Complaint Case No. 1067 of 1996 |T.R. No. 263 of 2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected, having found sufficient materials against him for framing the charge for the offences under Sections 147, 427, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has opposed the prayer submitting that on the basis of allegations made in the complaint petition, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner.