Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Learned counsel has submitted that he has removed the defects as pointed out by the office. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge -II, Godda, in S.T. No. 67 of 2013, arising out of G.R. Case No. 136 of 2012, whereby the petition for discharge under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no ingredient to make out the offence under Sec. 315 of the Indian Penal Code and neither any material evidence has been collected by the police to make out a case under the aforesaid Sec. as there is no medical report to show that the petitioner had caused abortion of the unborn child of the informant.
(3.) Heard. On perusal of the order impugned it is explicit that the court below while rejecting the prayer for discharge under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. has observed as follows: - - "On perusal of the L.C.R., I find that similar petition under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the lower court on 5.2.2013. No fresh material has been brought on record. The submissions made by the learned Defence Counsel and the documents filed on 5.12.2014 may be considered at the time of trial. It cannot be said that there is no material against the accused persons and it is admitted fact that the cognizance against the accused persons under the charge -sheeted Ss. has also been taken by the lower court on 7.1.2013. The order passed by the learned C.J.M. has not been challenged by the learned Defence Counsel before the superior court. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material against the accused person to proceed against them as such the petition dated 28.2.2013 filed by the learned Defence Counsel is not maintainable in the eye of law at this stage. Accordingly, it stands rejected.";