BISTU MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27-8-2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Rev, No. 94 of 2003, affirming the order dated 19-7-2003, passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in T.R. No. 89 of 2003. Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application dated 24-1-2000 for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. Against that petitioner filed the said revision, which was also rejected.

(2.) Admittedly petitioner tiled protest petition on 24-6-1999 when charge-sheet was submitted under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. Then cognizance was taken under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code on 3-7-1999. Petitioner took part in the trial. He never challenged the said order taking cognizance and continuance of trial. The trial has considerably advanced. The petitioner filed the said petition on 24-1-2004, contending that Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable and therefore the case should be committed to the Court of Session. The petitioner's application has been rightly rejected by the Court below.

(3.) After I dictated the order learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this order may not prejudice the parties while advancing their arguments in the Court below as to which offence is made out on the basis of the evidences.