IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1433 of 2009 Udal Singh, son of late Narayan Singh, resident of village- Khorahara, P.S.-Kudra, District- Kaimur, Bhabhua. Versus State of Bihar . ----------- 2. 24.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Kaimur, Bhabhua in Trial No.2112/08, G.R.No.811/07 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No.154/07 by which sufficient materials have been found for framing of charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner preferred Cr. Revision No.27/08 against the order dated 7.01.2008, taking cognizance. The said revision 2 application was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II. Accordingly, the case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 10.09.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class. On 15.10.2008, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution that the charge could be framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid petition dated 15.10.2008 filed on behalf of the prosecution was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II and he did not entertain the petition as he has earlier held that no case under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is made out against the accused and he expressed desire that the matter be heard by another court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it has been held in the revisional jurisdiction that no case is made out under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. to allow the petition of 3 the prosecution for framing charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the investigation was made against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but the learned C.J.M has taken cognizance under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which has been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. vide order dated 26.06.2008 passed in Cr. Revision No.27/08. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, although that order has not been challenged, but after passing that order, the case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the court of sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class although the cognizance has been taken under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is still open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to 4 see as to what offence is made out against the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that there are sufficient materials for framing of charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is within the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and no illegality has been committed. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered and gone through the charge-sheet as well as the case diary submitted against the accused petitioner. A petition has been filed on behalf of the prosecution at the time of framing of charge that the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is entitled to see and consider the material as to whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is triable by the Magistrate or triable by court of sessions, if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the 5 accused and if it is not triable exclusively by the court of sessions, he may frame a charge against the accused and by order transfer the case for trial to the Judicial Magistrate of the first class. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that there is ground for presuming that the accused petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he has fixed the date for framing of charge. Considering the facts and circumstanced stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)