IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32986 of 2007 INDRADEO ROY @ INARDEO ROY & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : M/s Bishwanath Singh, Sr. Advocate & Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s Abhay Kr. Thakur & Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. ------ O R D E R The two petitioners who figure as accused in Singhwara P.S. Case No. 8 of 2002 have prayed for quashing of order dated 14.5.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2006, whereby he has dismissed the revision petition bearing Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2006 filed by the petitioners against order dated 19.9.2006 passed by Sri P.K.Mohit, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga, whereby he has allowed the application of the informant and has converted the summons case into a warrant trial. One Ganesh Thakur, the informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid Singhwara P.S. Case alleging commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 379, 384 and 504 I.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet was submitted only under section 504 I.P.C. and the trial commenced as a summons trial. After examination four prosecution witnesses a petition was filed by the informant under section 259 Cr.P.C. to - 2 - convert the summons trial into a warrant trial and after hearing the parties the impugned order dated 19.9.2007 was passed. The petitioners herein sought to challenge the impugned order before the Sessions Court, Darbhanga, in Cr. Revision No. 537 of 2006 and the same stood dismissed by order dated 14.5.2007 on a finding that there was no illegality in the order. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that when the bus bearing registration no. BR – 7P – 0167 came from village Paira on 2.2.2002 and was passing through village Mohanpur both the accused stopped the bus and started looking for the conductor in the bus. Ganesh Thakur, conductor, was pulled out of the bus and accused Indradeo Roy pulling out a revolver from his waist, demanded whatever the informant had with him. When the Conductor refused to comply Indradeo, placed the revolver at his ears and threatened that if the informant would not comply with the orders he would be shot dead. In the meanwhile accused Manoj Rai took out Rs. 1110/- from the pocket of the informant and asking him to park the vehicle in front of his darwaza stated that it would remain standing there till such time that the monthly rangdari tax was finally settled. The conductor is said to have raised alarm and rushed towards his village and the driver of the vehicle was forced to take the bus to the darwaza of accused Inderdeo Rai. - 3 - It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the instant case has been filed in order to put pressure on Indradeo Rai who had filed Singhwara P.S. Case No. 9 of 2002 against the driver of the vehicle in question and wherein a charge sheet under sections 279, 427 I.P.C. had been submitted. It has also been submitted that the petition filed by the informant was by way of an after thought and from the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. no offence at all can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. Section 259 Cr.P.C. is a new section which has been added in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby power has been conferred on the Magistrate to convert a summons case relating to offence punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceeding six months into a warrant case if he considers it necessary to do so in the interest of justice. This amendment was added on the recommendation of the Joint Committee of the Parliament vide its report dated 4.12.1972 wherein it observed “ the Committee considers that the Magistrate should have the power to convert the summons case into a warrant case in serious cases, if he considers it necessary to do so in the interest of justice. In such cases the proceeding should commence from the start. The need for this has arisen - 4 - particularly because under the Bill the scope for adopting summons case procedure has been enlarged.” A plain reading of the section reveals that it empowers the Magistrate to convert summons case into warrant case (1) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for more than six months and (2) if he is of the opinion that it would lie in the interest of justice to try such a case in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases. The word “ re-hear the case” indicates that the Magistrate should commence the proceeding from the very start or de-novo. I have gone through both the orders of the Revisional Court as also the learned Magistrate and I find no illegality therein. A prima facie case demanding rangdari tax by show of force is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced during the summons trial. There are several decisions that when a warrant case is being tried as summons trial it is a curable irregularity as no prejudice is caused to the accused by adoption of wrong procedure . As stated above I find no illegality in the two impugned orders of the Courts below. As such the application stands dismissed. The Patna High Court The 11th July, 2008 Spd/-/ A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)