Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38019 of 2010 ====================================================== Satindra Nath Tiwary, Son of Late Sidhnath Tiwary, Resident of Dalsagar, Police Station - Buxar Industrial Area, District – Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ajay Tiwary, Son of Bishwanath Tiwary. 3. Nagendra Tiwary, Son of Prabhunath Tiwary. 4. Kailash Tiwary, Son of Late Prahlad Tiwary. All residents of Village – Dalsagar, Police Station – Buxar Industrial Area District – Buxar. 5. Nagar Ahir, Son of Luti Ahir, Resident of Parasia Police Station – Buxar Industrial Area, District – Buxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-06-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset again makes a prayer for adjourning the case for filing supplementary affidavit. Earlier, on 4.5.2012, the case was adjourned for four weeks for filing supplementary affidavit. However, till date supplementary affidavit has not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer to grant some accommodation so that supplementary affidavit may be filed. On repeated request, the Court refused to accept this prayer. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against an order dated 19th July, 2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2010, whereby, Revision preferred by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38019 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 2 / 4 2 petitioner, who was informant in Buxar (Mufassil) P.S. Case no. 39 of 1999, had challenged the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Buxar, in G.R. No. 270 of 1999, Tr. No. 445 of 2010. By the said order learned Magistrate had rejected the petition dated 11.11.2008 filed on behalf of the petitioner for amending charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case number of accused persons had assaulted the informant and in the said occurrence they had looted double barrel licensee gun of the petitioner. Despite this fact, according to learned counsel for the petitioner it was a case for offences under [STATUTE] , the Police had registered F.I.R. for the offence under [STATUTE] , and thereafter, submitted charge sheet. In this case the informant had earlier filed petition for amendment of charge on which learned Magistrate had passed order to file such petition after completion of the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, lastly on 11.11.2008, after conclusion of prosecution evidence, a petition was again filed for amending the charge. This petition has been rejected by the learned Magistrate, which was assailed before the Revisional Court and Revisional Crourt too rejected the petition. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38019 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 3 / 4 3 According to learned counsel for the petitioner the evidences which were brought on record during the trial were sufficient for amendment of charge. However, learned Magistrate without examining those materials, in perfunctory manner, had rejected the petition and Revisional Court, in similar manner, has affirmed the same. I have also heard Sri Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He has seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of the State that only with a view to delay conclusion of the trial, the informant, one way or the other, was filing petitions. The petition for amending the charge which was lastly rejected by the court below was one of the tactics for delaying the trial. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material on record. From the record it is evident that firstly on 3.7.2007 prosecution evidence was closed and case was fixed for recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, at subsequent stage, on filing of a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning Investigating Officer, the prayer was allowed. Thereafter, on 8.11.2008, the case was fixed for examination of accused persons. Subsequently, a petition was filed under Section Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38019 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 4 / 4 4 216 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the informant for amending the charge. Fact remains that in this case occurrence had taken place long back in the year 1999. In the F.I.R. also the Sections which were included were 144, 341, 323, 324 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place long back, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with either of the orders. Moreover, Revisional Court has passed a detailed and sound order which requires no interference. The petition stands dismissed. Let this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.