IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1015 of 2008 Mahesh Mandal. Son of Late Jagdish Mandal, resident of Narayan Chak, P.S. Katoria, District Banka... (informant). .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ganesh Mandal, son of Late Upendra Mandal 3. Pramila Devi, wife of Ganesh Mandal Both residents of Narayan Chak, P. S. Katoria, District- Banka (Accussed persons) ..... Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 06.07.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 26th July 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., III, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 1294 of 2007 arising out of Katoria P. S. Case No. 58 of 2004 under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 504,34 I.P.C. and 25(1-B) A/26/ 27/35 of the Arms Act by which the petition dated 12.3.2008 filed by accused opposite party no. 2 and 3 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged against accused including the 2 opposite parties. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against co-accused Dinesh Mandal and final form was submitted against the accused opposite parties, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate deferred with the finding of the police and took cognizance against all the accused including opposite parties for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions and all the accused appeared before the learned additional Sessions Judge. A petition dated 12.3.2008 was filed on behalf of the accused Ganesh Mandal and Pramila Devi (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge them. After hearing both the parties the petition for discharge has been allowed. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the informant as well as the injured Devgan Mandal has named the accused including opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to have committed offence. The plea of alibi that the opposite parties were not present at the place of occurrence is not to be considered at the stage of hearing under Sections 227 and 228 3 Cr.P.C. The informant has made statement in paragraph 3 and the another witness Devgan Mandal, the injured has made statement in paragraph 45 of the case-diary. Both of them have also stated that at the instance of Ganesh Mandal, his wife Pramila Devi brought the bag containing the firearms. Thereafter, Ganesh Mandal and another accused Dinesh Mandal shot fire on the informant as well as Devgan Mandal. Devgan Mandal received the fire shot injury and he regained his sense after treatment in the Bhagalpur hospital. He has further submitted that at the stage of Section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to see as to whether the evidence would lead to conviction of the accused or not. The Court has to proceed only on the prima facie case against the accused and at the time of framing of charge meticulous consideration of evidence and materials on record by the Court is not necessary. In support of his contention he has referred a decision in the case of Rana Ramdeo Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2000 (4) PLJR 405. He has referred paragraph 6 and 7 of the said judgment. Decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 4 2018 and the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Kunj Bihari & Ors.1990 (1) PLJR (SC) 18 have been relied upon. Learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that none of the witnesses except the informant and his brother have supported the prosecution case to the extent of the petitioner. Even the sons of the informant and the injured Devgan Mandal have not named the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to have committed the offence. He has further submitted that moreover, allegation against accused Pramila Devi is to have only brought the bag containing firearms and no further overtact has been alleged against her. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case-diary it appears that it is a case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence there was altercation and thereafter at the instance of co- accused Ganesh Mandal, his wife Pramila Devi brought the bag containing firearms. Thereafter, Ganesh Mandal and his brother Dinesh Mandal shot fires on the informant and his brother Devgan Mandal. It was a chance that the informant did not receive the fire shot 5 injury. Fire shot injury has been received by Devgan Mandal. The statement of informant and Devgan Mandal has been mentioned in paragraph 3 and 45 of the case- diary. There is strong circumstance to believe that the accused-opposite parties have also committed offence. In view of the decision referred above, I find and hold that the impugned order is not fit to be sustained and it is, accordingly, set aside. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 will appear before the learned trial Court and the case shall proceed against them in accordance with law. In the result, this revision application is allowed. kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)