IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1958 of 2011 SMT. NALINI JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 27.01.2011. Heard. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Mithanpura P.S.Case No.72 of 2001. It was submitted as one of the grounds for seeking the order that two accused persons are already facing trial after having been summoned eight years back and after such a long gap the police was placing supplementary chargesheet along with the case diary sending up the petitioner for trial. It was contended that truly speaking, there was no material contained in the supplementary case diary so as to justifying the passing of the order. It was contended that no offence could be said to be made out on perusal of the material placed before the court. The last contention was that the court was passing the order in a mechanical manner without referring to any part of the case diary, specially, in its paragraph so as to justifying the requirement 2 of summoning the petitioner. It may be pointed out that supplementary case diary is the part of the main case diary and when a supplementary chargesheet, as we call it, is filed in cases in which the police has kept investigation pending against any accused, the court has to peruse the main part of the case diary which could have been submitted earlier while filing the chargesheet. It may be very difficult for this court to consider the whole of the case diary for examining the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, more so, the petitioner has the opportunity of agitating the point of no offence made out or there being absolutely no material justifying the trial of the petitioner by the court of Sessions when she is called upon to make upon her submission under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It may be pointed out that no sufficient grounds for framing a charge or sufficient materials justifying the inference that an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions could be held only by making reference to the materials contained in the case diary. If 3 there is no material then naturally there may not be any inference raised. If there is no offence made out or if the complicity of a person is not indicated on the scale of sufficiency of materials then no such accused could be tried by a court of Sessions as may appear from the very provisions contained in Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. I direct the court of Sessions which could be hearing the petitioner under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. to go into those details as required to be gone into regarding the constitution of the offence or the participation of the individual like the petitioner and pass the impugned order. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)