IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9270 of 2006 NIWAS PANDIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 22.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against order dated 24.1.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamui, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2005 arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2001, whereby the prayer of the petitioner under section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It appears that the aforesaid case was registered under sections 498A, 494, 120B, 307, 379 I.P.C. against several persons but the police in its wisdom submitted a charge sheet only against the petitioner herein only under sections 498A, 494 and 379 I.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the case diary to which he has made a reference by order dated 8.10.2002 took cognizance of the offence under sections 307, 498A, 494 and 379 I.P.C. This order taking cognizance has not been challenged by petitioner either in revision or under section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner moved a petition for his discharge under section 227(1)(a) Cr.P.C. which was rejected since the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found sufficient materials in the case diary to frame charges thereunder and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. The revision preferred there against also was dismissed. The High Court sitting in exercise of power under section - 2 - 482 Cr.P.C. cannot substitute its own satisfaction for the satisfaction of either the Magistrate or the Sessions Court. The satisfaction of the court below can only be judged at the time of trial. In this view of the matter I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. However, the petitioner may raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge if charge has not framed till now. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)