Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.651 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Nath Purvey S/o Pawan Kumar Purvey 2. Ramashanker Purvey S/o Vishwanath Purvey, both R/o Mohalla- Pandasarai, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party /s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 29-08-2012 The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-5th, Darbhanga, rejecting the prayer of discharge made on behalf of the petitioners, have preferred the present revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) questioning the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order. This case is a true depiction reflecting the maneuvering capacity of the accused-petitioners for successfully delaying their criminal trial for almost 30 years on frivolous grounds. One Ganga Mahaseth of Mohalla- Pandasarai, Police Station- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga submitted a written report dated 3.12.1982 to the Officer Incharge of Laheriasarai Patna High Court CR. REV. No.651 of 2008 (4) dt.29-08-2012 2/6 Police Station disclosing the commission of cognizable crime by the accused persons including the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 384 of 1982 dated 3.12.1982 for the offences under [STATUTE] as also under sections ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act was instituted and investigation was taken up by the police. On close of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons including the petitioners. Subsequently, by order dated 5.9.1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga cognizance was taken in the case under [STATUTE] . and ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.1.1996 the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial and disposal, giving rise to Sessions Case No. 10 of 1996. The case was fixed for framing of charge on 24.8.1996, but somehow or the other the petitioners succeeded in delaying the matter and charge could not be framed on the date fixed and the matter was adjourned on different dates on one pretext or the other. After six years thereafter, on 2.7.2002 the petitioners filed a petition under sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for their discharge, or, alternatively for remitting the matter back to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. The petition filed on behalf Patna High Court CR. REV. No.651 of 2008 (4) dt.29-08-2012 3/6 of the petitioners on 2.7.2002 could not be disposed of earlier on the ground that the case diary could not be made available and finally by the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 the prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected. Even the present revision application filed on 8.7.2008 was allowed to be dismissed by order dated 6.8.2010 for want of prosecution by a Bench of this Court. However, revision application was subsequently restored and has been listed for consideration under the heading ‘For Admission’. Apparently, the criminal case instituted as far back as on 3.12.1982 has not been allowed to proceed at the behest of the accused-petitioners and in the meantime almost 30 years have elapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that charge against the petitioners cannot be framed without production and examination of the police case diary. It is contended that before the learned trial court, despite the order passed, police case diary was not produced by the prosecution. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is not sustained in the eye of law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order. It is contended that Patna High Court CR. REV. No.651 of 2008 (4) dt.29-08-2012 4/6 it is now high time that the trial of the accused persons including the petitioners in the present proceeding should reach to its logical conclusion and the accused persons should be brought to the justice, after framing of charge against them. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the impugned order and the materials available on record, this Court finds that in the F.I.R. the petitioners are specifically named as accused. The specific allegations are there against the petitioners in the F.I.R. disclosing the commission of cognizable crime. On close of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners and by order dated 5.9.1985 cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga after looking into all the materials including the case diary. It further appears that despite order taking cognizance and despite commitment of the case to the court of sessions, the petitioners succeeded in delaying the disposal of the criminal trial. It is well settled that for the purpose of framing charge the court is required to find out a prima facie case and sufficient grounds against the accused persons for putting them on trial. Sufficiency of materials/ grounds for framing charge can be found by looking into the F.I.R., the final form submitted by the police, and all other materials available on the record. Merely on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.651 of 2008 (4) dt.29-08-2012 5/6 the ground of misplacement of the case diary at that stage, the petitioners could not have claimed for their discharge from the criminal case. Learned trial

Applicable IPC Section: 380

Statute Text:
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft in a building, tent or vessel. Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.