IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9441 of 2008 DINESH CHANDRA THAKUR, S/O LATE UPENDRA NARAYAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARARI, P.S. BIRAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY **** /3/ 21.05.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order, dated 15.01.2008, passed by the Session's Judge, Darbhanga, in Cr. Revision No. 302 of 2007, by which he has dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul at Benipur, by which he has taken cognizance by order, dated 04.08.2005, and rejected the petition of discharge by order, dated 12.06.2007. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that there is allegation in the first information report that the charge sheet has been submitted only for offence under Sections 379 and 384 of the Penal Code, but, in the charge sheet it has been submitted that charge sheet under Sections 379 and 384 of the Penal Code and 27 of he Arms Act is at the instance of the Inspector of Police and - 2 - not at the instance of the investigating officer, however, on the basis of the said charge sheet the cognizance has been taken against all the sections. However, since, the name of the petitioner mentioned in the first information report which mentions about the theft of tractor as well as firing by the accused person and further the order rejecting the petition of discharge held that there is sufficient material against the accused person. However, at the time of framing of charge and discharge it is the opinion of the Magistrate and the Magistrate has to see that there is sufficient material for framing of the charge and the matter has been considered by the revisional Court as well. 4. However, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not say that no case made out against the petitioner. It has been submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted under all the sections, but, the investigating officer has only recommended to submit charge sheet under four sections, i.e., under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 of the Penal Code whereas the other sections under which the charge sheet has been submitted, it was at the instance of the Inspector of Police. - 3 - 5. Be that as it may, the name of the petitioner finds place in the first information report for offence under Sections 379 and 384 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and the allegation is that battery was taken away dishonestly and cognizance is taken of the offence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial for early disposal of this case. 6. With these observations and directions, this application is dismissed. S.A. (Gopal Prasad, J. )