IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14025 of 2007 BABUAJEE @ BABU LAL SAH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 28.4.2009 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and leaned APP for the State. Petitioner want quashing of the order dated 24.2.2007 which has been passed in Sessions Trial No. 646 of 2006 by learned Sessions Judge FTC-1, Sheohar at Sitamarhi whereby and whereunder the discharge petition filed under section 227 of the Cr. P.C. exonerating the petitioners from the rigour of section 364 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected. Contention of learned Senior counsel on behalf of petitioner 2 is that in the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police of the district there is some reflection to show that in the chargesheet which came to be filed in the court instead of section 384 of the I.P.C. the same was filed under section 364 of the I.P.C. In addition to this it is also contended that there is nothing to show in the evidence which has come that there is any intent or object of the accused persons to eliminate the kidnapped boy. Kidnapping of boy is not an issue as such because the above fact has emerged in the investigation. The Matter was considered by the Additional Sessions Judge and in his speaking order he has referred to some paragraphs and evidence which has come in the case diary. The case diary had been called for by the Court to - 2 - verify the situation as well as the veracity of the evidence which had come in the matter. Learned APP representing the State after going through the case diary has referred to the paragraphs where evidence has come in this regard. In relation to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that even though there is some reflection with regard to chargesheet in the report of the Superintendent of Police but this Court fails to understand as to what is the worth in law the opinion of the Superintendent of Police in his supervisory jurisdiction. If he was of the opinion that a mistake had crept into the chargesheet and was a typing mistake then why was not any step taken to correct the same by filing a modified/supplementary chargesheet, by the prosecution. Even otherwise the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police has no evidentiary value as such in the eye of law and the same cannot be a ground for quashing. Further there is material on record to show that the Additional Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence and material which has come during the investigation and stands corroborated by learned APP. It is not a fit case which requires interference. This application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)