- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.
(2.) Petitioners, by assailing the impugned order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Simdega, have challenged the order whereby the learned court below has directed the petitioners to appear and face trial and has opened a supplementary record for proceeding against the petitioners vide S.T. No. 69(A)/2008.
(3.) Facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this case are as follows :On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the informant namely one Rameshwar Baraik, a case was registered for investigation on 03.01.2008. Both the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and the allegations were levelled not only against the petitioners but also against some unknown persons. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet recommending trial against accused Bijay Singh while not recommending the trial against the petitioners. However, the investigation continued to remain pending against other accused persons and later on, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in which the Investigating Officer had recommended trial against accused Rangtu Ghansi, Santu @ Saotosh Lakwa and Bhutung Lakwa but with the specific observation and opinion that no material was collected in course of investigation against the present petitioners and therefore they were not recommended for trial. On the basis of the chargesheet, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to such of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was submitted and who were recommended for trial. Though no such cognizance was taken against the present petitioners. Subsequently, after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case of the said chargesheeted accused persons to the Court of Sessions. It was at this stage when the case after commitment, was pending before the Sessions Judge, that the accused persons had filed their application for bail and while disposing of the bail application, the Sessions Judge had observed that the present petitioners who were named in the F.I.R., but not chargesheeted, should also be directed to appear and face trial and on the basis of such observation, issued a direction to the office to issue summons and a separate supplementary record vide S.T. No. 69(A)/2008, was opened for the purpose of conducting trial of the present petitioners.;