TOGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1983-9-27
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 02,1983

Toga Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS revision by twenty persons is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Jurtge, Balolra dated June 16, 1983 passed in Criminal Case No. 56 of 1981 whereby cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC was taken and process was issued to them to stand trial.
(2.) IT would be proper to briefly resume the facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision. At about 9 a.m. on 6 -8 -81, a mob of nearly twenty four persons went to the field to Kamal and started ploughing it. Kamal, his brothers Sattar and Bilal went to forbid them. The mob became violent and made an assault on the complainant -party. The aforesaid three persons along with one Gafoor were belaboured. A report of the occurrence was lodged at Police Station, Bramer on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against seven persons in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banner. Since, the offence under Section 307, IPC was exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the case was committed for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 307, 147, 148, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC against the seven accused -persons. On 16.6.83, P.W. I Stattar was examined by the prosecution. When he was under cross -examination, the Public Prosecutor submitted and application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, praying therein that the twenty persons (who are the petitioners in this Court) be summoned to face trial. The cross -examination of the witness was defened at the request of the defence counsel. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated June 16, 1983 allowed the said application, took cognizance against the petitioners and issued bailable warrants to secure their presence. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
(3.) I have heard the earned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.