IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32982 of 2007 OM PRAKASH GUPTA, son of late Bhola Nath Sah, resident of Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.S. and District Lakhisrai Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 25.8.2010 In view of the fact that the connected restoration application has been allowed today by a separate order in Cr.Misc.No. 18366/2010, this application has also been heard on merit. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order rejecting the prayer of discharge of the petitioner by the court below in exercise of power under section 227 Cr.P.C. is vitiated either on account of non-consideration of issue of sanction or there being no material to frame charges against the petitioner gets answered from the following passage of the impugned order: “In this case charge sheet was submitted against five accused persons but one Chandrama Prasad became absconder and the case of remaining four accused persons namely, Sheochandra Paswan, Om Prakash Gupta, Manoj Kumar and Imam Bux have been committed to the court of Sessions. It is also to be 2 noted that the informant of this case namely, S.I. Hira Singh was on his duty at the Jamui Railway Station where the occurrence has taken place on 16.8.2001 therefore it cannot be argued by the defence lawyer that he had no authority to lodge the case. Besides I have perused the entire case record including the materials available in the case diary I find sufficient material against above four accused persons in paragraph nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 51, 54, 67, 80, 133 and 136 of the case diary to frame charges against them for the offence punishable u/s 287/ 304A, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and u/ss 150, 153, 173, and 174 of the Indian Railways Act. So far the argument of the defence lawyer that the cognizance taking order is bad for want of sanction is concerned in my opinion the present case is not squarely covered under the provision of section 180F of the Indian Railway Act and 197 of the Cr.P.C. If at all the accused persons had their any grievance against cognizance taking order they should have filed a revision against that order before the competent court. Hence the above petition filed on 3 Surendra/ behalf of the accused persons u/ss 227 Cr.P.C. dated 5.4.2006 bears no merit and hence it stands rejected.” Counsel for the petitioner would then submit that there is an error of record, inasmuch as in certain paragraphs of the case diary there is no material against the petitioner. Counsel in fact has really read between the lines of the aforementioned order, inasmuch as the import of the aforementioned order is this much that it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence. The sufficiency of evidence or otherwise can not to be gone into at the stage of framing of charge or considering the prayer for discharge. So far issue with regard to grant of sanction is concerned, not only the court below has considered this aspect but having taken the material on record this Court is otherwise satisfied that there was no requirement for grant of sanction in this case. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4