JOGINDRA SINGH ALIAS JOGI SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order dated 26th February, 1971, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, by which he upheld the order of Shri S.D. Sharma, Munsif Magistrate, declining to commit the accused persons to the Court of Sessions. The circumstances, in which the impugned order came to be passed, will appear from the following: For an occurrence that had taken place on 28.3.1968 in village Sisouna within Madhubani Police Station, the petitioner, Jogindra Singh, lodged a first information report at the Madhubani Police -Station on 13.4.1968. After completing investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet under Ss. 144, 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code against Kameshwar Jha, Kusheshwar Jha and others. The case is pending in the Court of Shri S.D. Sharma, Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani, wherein five prosecution witnesses have been examine.

(2.) For the same occurrence in which Bachelal died, on the information laid by Kameshwar Jha, the police submitted charge -sheet under Ss. 302, 323, 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code against Jogindra Singh and others. The commitment enquiry has already been finished and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) In the petitioner's case against Kameshwar Jha and others pending in the Court of Shri S.D. Sharma, Munsif Magistrate, two petitions were filed for committing the accused persons to the Court of Sessions. One of those petitions was filed on 23.7.1969. It was stated therein that the counter case with respect to the same offence had already been committed to the Court of Sessions, and therefore it would be better that in this case the procedure of commitment enquiry be adopted. Against the order dated 29.8.1969 recorded by the learned Munsif Magistrate rejecting this petition, there was a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge. He took the view that there was no case for committing the accused in this case to the Court of Sessions and that when the trial court was still proceeding with the trial and witnesses were being examined, the present application was premature.