High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the refusal of discharge and the institution of a criminal case arising from a raid where weapons were recovered. The court rejected the submission.
Liberty given to raise the points before the court below during framing of charge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11943 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11943 of 2011
====================================================== 1. Akhilesh Kumar Singh @ Akhilesh Singh S/O Late Ramanand Singh, Resident Of Village- Patla, Police Station- Maheshkhunt, District- Khagaria 2. Gopal Singh S/O Late Parmanand Singh, Resident Of Village- Patla, Police Station- Maheshkhunt, District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
2 16-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 1.3.2011 by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioners and proceeded with the trial. It appears that on the secret information, the informant along with Police party had raided the house and after looking to them two persons started to flee but ultimately they were apprehended and after search, a country- made pistol and cartridges were recovered from the accused. Accordingly, seizure list was prepared and the case was filed.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier to this case, nephew of the petitioners had already filed a petition against seizure list witnesses and in that case, petitioners are the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11943 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012
witnesses. He further submits that the case has been instituted, investigated and the charge-sheet has been submitted by the same rank officer which should have been done by the Higher Officer.
The counsel for the State has refuted the argument of the petitioner and submitted that these are the defence of petitioners which will be seen at the time of trial, with regard to instituting the case, investigation and filing of charge-sheet by one rank officer, there is no such bar.
Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. The argument that same rank officer cannot institute, investigate and file the charge sheet is not acceptable. There is no bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Arms Act.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points before the court below at the time of framing of charge.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a magistrate can properly dismiss a discharge petition and proceed with trial when the petitioner argues that the same officer should not have instituted, investigated, and filed the charge-sh
Whether the argument that a single rank officer cannot institute, investigate, and file the charge-sheet constitutes a bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Arms Act.
Akhilesh Kumar Singh @ Akhilesh Singh and Gopal Singh
The State Of Bihar
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
