IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1434 of 2009 Pravesh Yadav @ Ram Pravesh Yadav, son of late Kali Yadav, resident of village Dhanuki, Police Station Manpur, District Nalanda. … Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 16.11.2011 The accused- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-2, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 776 of 2006 by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after investigation the police did not find any material to produce against the petitioner and the final form was submitted against him and the charge-sheet was submitted against the other accused but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner also. In the whole case-diary there is no eye witness of the occurrence who could disclose the name of the petitioner. The son of the deceased has also not named the petitioner; hence the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the allegation against him. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that from perusal of the impugned order it appears that although the final form was submitted against the petitioner, on the material mentioned in the case-diary cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner as well as other accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of session. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order after going through the case-diary and it has been mentioned that in the case-diary there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to frame charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial court has found that there is sufficient material in certain paragraph of the case diary to proceed with this case against the petitioner and there is sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, stated above, I do not find any 3 ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)