IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55396 of 2007 1. BABAN SINGH S/O RAJA RAM SINGH 2. RAM KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE JAG BILASH SINGH --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIR BAHADUR SINGH SON OF LATE KEDAR SINGH --- OPP.PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh no.2, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 08.09.2010 Petitioners challenge order dated 04.10.2007 passed in Sessions trial no. 324 of 2006 whereby their application seeking discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been considered and rejected as on perusal of the materials on record sufficient evidence/materials on record were found to frame the charge(s). While assailing the order learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cognizance of this case was taken on 25.02.2003 but subsequent thereto supplementary charge sheet was submitted in which they were sent up as a result whereof their case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It is thus the contention of the petitioners that no cognizance was taken against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the supervision note recorded by the higher police officer absolved them of the charge(s)/accusation(s). Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and several witnesses have made statements implicating the petitioners in the alleged crime in which one person was done to death. It is thus contended that the opposite party no.2 that the order impugned may not be interfered with. Cognizance is taken of a case and not of the accuseds. It is admitted position that the case of the petitioners was subsequently also committed to the Court of Sessions. Section 193 of the Code empowers the Court of Sessions to take cognizance in a situation where the case has already been committed to the Court of Sessions. This Court does not find any merit in the first submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Magistrate has recorded in the impugned order that on a perusal of the materials available on the record there is/are sufficient evidence to proceed with the framing of charge(s). It is to be recorded here that petitioners are named in the F.I.R., and witnesses have supported their implication. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)