Wm in 200 Wm (W) WWW mmi‘wm %3ff?m311%¥T r. M.P. NaASL/(W PETITIONERS _ 1. Dwc sr-am, 5/0 Mohor' Sai Sari-hi, agzd abou‘i' year-s, resident cf Village. Birm, R5. handih, Disfricf Janjgir-Champa (66} adhar, 5/9 Budalu Pa'l'ell aged abmrl' 27 's, residenf of Devrnha, P.5. Bamhandih, Dis ric+ Janjgir-Champa (C6) 3.Mu nu Yadav, 5/0 Dhanman Yadav, aged abo 1' 3O years, residen‘r of Devraha, RS. Ba handih, District Janjgir-Champa (C6) a're of Chhai'fi5gar-h, Through Disricf Magis mfe, J'tmjgir-Champa, Disiricf Janjgir Chu (C6) Vs RESPQNDENT The Present Mr. Shuilendm Dubey‘ Advoc Te for fhe pafi‘Honers. Mr. MK. Mel/rm, Panel Lawyer- for The respgndent—s‘tmg. a A L o R D E R “ Novemher, 2007) ( PW hhirandrn Mishm .T- By this peti‘rion under impugned fhe order dared 1C Janjgir in Criminal Revision i‘ passed by The Chief Judicial SecTion 482 of The Cr.P.C. fhe pefitioners have 9.2007 passedby The learneé Sessiqns Judge, 10.103/07 arising ouf of order dated 31.8.2007 Magisfmre, Janjgir whereby learned Sessions Judge has rejected The rev sion petifign and. uphgid The arder of learned. Chief Judicial Magistrm‘a petitioner‘s under 5ection 167 P4 —r’f* ” whereby The application preferred by lhe (2) of Cr.P.C. has been rejec‘red. f m a mw,m,f§mgt grs is That 0n the bg5§s of FER dated 392, 1203/34 af IPC was regis‘rered againsf The pe‘rifioners and var-ion remands were faker! by The poiice for filing The charge sheeT and ulT Tely The charge sheeT was filed on 31.3.2007 Le. on 76*“ day afTer The eTiTioner-s were remanded To The judicia! cusTody by The MagisTmTe. IT is argued ThaT The offence under secTion 392/397 is punishabie wiTh The m ximum jail senTence of 10 years and in These. circumsTunces since The char e sheeT ceuid neT be fiied wiThin d period nf 60 days, The peTiTicmers were enTiTied To be released an beii, as per 5ecTion 167 (2) of The Cr.P.C. I is furTher argued TheT even after The applicaTion under SecTion 167 (2) o Cr.P.C‘ was rejecTed by The MagisTmTe, The remand was obTuined by The alice fer The offence punishable wider SecTion 397' and The revision prefe red by The peTiTioners againsT The order 0f Chief Judicial MagisTmTe has n rejeeTed by The revisional cdurT wiTh an observation Thdi' offence Lind r SecTion 397 is punishable wiTh The minimum jail senTence of seven ye rs and Therefore, iT cannoT be said ThaT The period far filingrThe charge sh is 66 days; From perusal of The memo f revisian (Annexure P-6) filed by The peTiTioners' iT is evidenT TheTKnumb r of eceused persons are involved in The crime in question and even The fin l report menTions ThdT The charge sheeT has been filed againsT The five caused persens Though The offence is menTioned under SecTion 392, 1203 di 391/34 9f The IPC. Tha grievance 0f The pefif 14.5.2007 offence under Sectio Al 44M, ’( n i n- i a e e / W m 11H 200 3mm (W) WWW ammm WWW Wm fa°rm awifawamém #1? WW,W,W mm Hi 200 mm (W) manfaaia; WWW WWikém mmm .—3r~ $afrawm Roshan/— Taking info considerafian The number of aacuszd persons invofvad in The crime in quesiizm and mt ure of aliegm‘icns againsi' the accusad persons of robbery prima—facie offewce under 5eciion 395 of The EPC, which is punishable wifh The life imp risonmenf, is There and for The purposes of provisions under section 167 (2) of fhe Cr.P‘C., The charge she-:31” may be filed wi‘i’hin 90 days and in fhis case if has been filed on fhe 76m day. ‘K In View of the above, The pefi‘rian hes no meritfhe some is liable To be l dismissed and if is hereby dismissed. l , Sd/- DI‘HRENDRA WSI'mA Judge l