IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.535 of 2002 ================================================== 1. Himanshu Kumar, son of Sri Ramashray Singh. 2. Raj Ballam Singh, son of Late Ram Suhawan Singh 3. Niranjan Singh, son of Late Baleshwar Singh. 4. Devanshu Kumar, son of Sri Ramashray Singh 5. Shambhu Sharan Singh, son of Ram Nandan Singh. 6. Anil Kumar , son of Ram Babu Singh 7. Rama Nand Singh, son of Late Mahabir Singh 8. Ramdip Singh, son of Late Raghunandan Singh 9. Shyam Nandan Singh, son of Jai Nandan Singh 10. Sudhir Singh, son of Late Brij Ballam Singh. 11. Chitranjan Singh, son of Kameshwar Singh (All residents of village-Chaura, P.S.-Daniawan, District- Patna) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Dasrath Singh, son of Late Dhanu Singh, resident of village- Chaura, P.S.- Daniawan, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 4.06.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City in Daniawan P.S. Case No.40/1995, G.R.No.1439/1995 by which he has been pleased to find that there is sufficient material for framing of charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.535 of 2002 dt.25-11-2011 2 380 and 364 of the I.P.C. and the petitioners have been directed to appear before the court for committing the case to the court of sessions. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Daniyawa P.S. Case No.40/1995 was instituted on 24.10.1995 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 448, 380 and 364 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the police found the case true under Sections 323/34 of the I.P.C. and found the case false under the remaining sections of the I.P.C. and submitted final report no.15/1998 dated 21.07.1998. Protest petition was filed on 9.11.1995 and after perusal of the report and the protest petition, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City took cognizance vide order dated 16.07.2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 of the I.P.C. and transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioners appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the prosecution filed a petition dated 15.04.2002 praying therein to frame charge under Sections 380 and 364 of the I.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 4.06.2002 has been Patna High Court CR. REV. No.535 of 2002 dt.25-11-2011 3 pleased to hold that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 448, 364 and 380 of the I.P.C. is made out and directed the petitioner to remain physically present on 27.06.2002 for committing the case to the court of sessions. It has been further submitted that once the cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate has no power to review the order of taking cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused. The learned Magistrate can take note and summon the accused only when some evidence for more offences comes during the trial. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner counsel for the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. After submission of the final form, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offence and thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate for trial. Once, the cognizance has been taken, the learned Magistrate has no power to review the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.535 of 2002 dt.25-11-2011 4 order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. It further appears that considering all these matters, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.07.2002 has stayed the further proceeding of this case. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 25th November, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)