IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2017 of 2011 PARSURAM MANDAL & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 2. 27.1.2011 After having heard Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Court does not find any illegality as regards passing of the order of cognizance in Barhat P.S.Case No. 16 of 2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, on 2.11.2010. He has seen and perused the case diary and the charge sheet. If one could peruse Section 190(1)( b) of the Cr. P.C., one could find that an order of cognizance could be passed by a Magistrate competent to do so after perusal of the police report of such facts. The police report is defined by Section 2(r) of the Cr. P.C. to mean report forwarded by the police under Section 173(3) of the Cr. P.C. If one could peruse Section 173(3) Cr. P.C., then, one could find as to what could be the contents of the police report. In the decision of this Court in Kuli Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1978 P.L.J.R 500 it was pointed out that the case diary is the police report along with all documents attached thereto. Thus, the Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 2.11.2010 which was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui. However, the court desires to set aside the part of order by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate was separating the records of three accused persons, namely, Bablu Mandal, Naresh Mandal and Bijay Mandal as the police had kept the 2 investigation pending in their respect. The Court directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, to peruse the case diary again. He is further directed to go through the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R 1995 S.C. 231 and Abhinandan Jha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 117, etc., which lay down the proposition that if the Magistrate is satisfied about the sufficiency of the material regarding commission of the offence by some one who had not been sent up, then he could be fully justified in putting him on trial as well. This proposition was discussed and recognized by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1978 P.L.J.R. 500. If the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui finds on perusal of the case diary that the materials were sufficient requiring summoning of those three accused persons whose investigation was kept pending by the police, then he shall be free to summon them keeping in mind that order of cognizance has already been passed by him and put such persons on trial who appear to him to have committed the offence. This petition is dismissed with the above directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)