- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by Sri Kumar Pawn, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No.1852 of 2004, whereby the application filed for discharge by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., was rejected by the court below, stating that there was sufficient material available for framing the charge against the petitioner. It appears that petitioner has been made accused in Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 271 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.1852 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/504 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, in all, six in number, had assembled at the Puja Pandal and had made firing, injuring the informant and other persons. It appears that investigation was made in this case and charge-sheet was filed against the other co-accused persons, who had faced the trial in S.T. No. 245 of 2005 and they were acquitted after trial by Judgment dated 20th March 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IX, Jamshedpur. It further appears that supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the police in which so far as this petitioner is concerned, final form was submitted in his favour, but the Court below took cognizance for the offence against the petitioner also. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the Impugned order dated 22.6.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, so far as this petitioner is concerned, final form was submitted by the police stating that there was lack of evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the other co-accused persons faced the trial and have been acquitted after trial by the Trial Court and in that view of the matter, the petitioner ought to have been discharged by the Trial Court. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set-aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find from the Judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IX, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 245 of 2005, that all the accused persons were acquitted of the charge who were facing the trial, in view of the fact that the witnesses including the informant had turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Even in the supplementary charge-sheet, which was filed against the other co-accused, the final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner showing lack of evidence against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, when the other co-accused persons were acquitted of the charge in view of the fact that even the informant had turned hostile, there was no occasion for framing charge against the petitioner and thus, it was a fit case in which the petitioner ought to have been discharged.;