MUKHLAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21st February, 2003 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been summoned to answer the charges under Section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and further as to why they be not put on trial together with the two accused, namely, Fagu Choudhary and Sarju Chaudhary, already facing trial.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, it is at much belated stage i.e. after thirteen years and they have been summoned to answer the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, though there is no compelling reason, shown in the impugned order dated 21st February, 2003.

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, took cognizance of the offence against the aforesaid two accused persons on 20th May, 1992 and subsequently having found the offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29th March, 1993. Thereafter, charges against those two accused persons were framed on 14th December, 2000 and three witnesses were examined by the trial Court i.e. PW 1 Umeshwar Mishra, examined on 16th April, 2001, PW 2 Indrajyoti Devi, examined on 16th June, 2001 and PW 3 Nageshwar Mishra, examined on 5th September, 2001.