IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32454 of 2009 SATENDRA MAHTO @ SATENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.11.2009 Heard. I have already indicated the facts of the case in order passed by me on 8.8.2008 in Cr.Misc.Petition No.20157 of 2008(Annexure-1). There being no new facts or change in circumstance requiring the review of that order, the petition is dismissed. I have perused the detailed order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barh in Sessions Trial No.245 of 2008. It is really a matter for enquiry by the Sessions Judge, Patna as also the Senior Superintendent of Police., Patna as to how chargesheet in its original could not be allowed to be presented before the court and an attested copy of it was allowed to be seen by the court. While perusing the order it could be found that multiple chargesheets were filed by the police against the many accused persons on many occasions. This ultimately indicates that the A.C.J.M., Barh had got the occasion of perusing the case diary on a number of occasions for passing orders summoning - 2 - the accused persons. I have, on a number of occasions, highlighted the situation that the police often sends up some of the accused persons and keeps the matter under investigation against some others delaying the trial. There is a Supreme Court decision reported in 1995 SCC(Cri) 16 Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre & Ors Vrs. State of Maharashtra (also reported in 1995(1)SCC 42) which could be the answer to obviate such situations. The Supreme Court has held that in such a situation what the Magistrate has to be ‘satisfied’ about was the ‘sufficiency’ of the materials against the accused persons named in the FIR which may include those against whom the investigation has been kept pending and if a Magistrate taking cognizance is so satisfied, there is no bar in law to summon those accused persons also against whom the police has kept the investigation pending. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above noted case of Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre & Ors. Unfortunately, the officers who are to discharge the functions of Magistrating taking cognizance on police report, do not bear this - 3 - law in their minds, as a result of which there is pendency of a huge number of cases during investigation and that ultimately multiplies the number of Sessions Trial in this state as the court passed summoning order on as many occasions as could be the number of presentation of the supplementary chargesheets in a police case. I could recommend the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to consider the circulation of this order among the officers in the rank of C.J.M. and S.D.J.M., who have been vested with the powers of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. with a direction to go through the decision of Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and act as per it. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )