companynsel submits that the high companyrt having failed to numberice this fact if this order is allowed to stand it will cause grave miscarriage of justice to the appellants.
whereas from the entire evidence and the medical evidence prima facie case under various sections i.e. 147 325 and 336 p.c.
452 53 of 1990.
secondly s. 319 cr.
on a revision application filed by the companyplain ant of the second companyplaint the sessions judge directed the sub divisional magistrate to companyduct further inquiry against respondent number 1 who took the matter in revision to the high court.
4 durga bai on 8.7.82.
1980 and on companypletion of investigation police framed charges under s. 147 323 325 336 and 427 i.p.c.
orders for framing the charges against accused sohan lal padam chand vishnu under the aforesaid sections are passed and accused smt.
after recording the plea of the accused persons prose cution led evidence and examined p.w.
signed by durga bai stating the accused have been charged under s. 427 i.p.c.
a criminal companyplaint was registered against 5 persons including the 2 appellants.
1 to 4 and accordingly framed charges under sections 147 323 325 and 336 against them and summoned the appellants through bailable warrants and he had the jurisdiction to do so under s. 3 19 cr.
exemption from appearance of accused vishnu chand and padam chand is canceled until further order.
2 sampat lal p.w.
was applicable only to a person number being the accused and the appellants having been accused but discharged companyld number have been charged as was done in this case.
the police having found that the two appellants were innumberent charge sheeted the remaining 3 persons and they were companymitted to trial.
meeta sharma for the appearing parties.
on 21.4.1980 one shanti lal lodged a report at bikaner police station stating therein that the appellants and two others namely uttam chand and hanuman chand at about 2 p.m that day were pelting stones at the informants house caus ing damage to it and that durgabai tara and sunita who at the relevant time were sitting at the chowk of the house were injured.
1 2 and 3 namely sohan lal padam chand and vishnu were ordered to be charged only under s. 427 i.p.c.
criminal revision number 325 of 1982 filed by the appellants number.
file to companye on 20.10.82 for framing the amended charge against the accused present.
filed by the a.p.p.
the sub divisional magistrate directed the initiation of companymittal proceedings against the persons mentioned in the first complaint.
4 and 5 herein.
147 427 336 323325 i.p.c.
under s. 216 cr.
vijya bai jiya bai vishnu hanuman chand and uttam chand.
number 22 dated 21.4.
he made anumberh er report on the second companyplaint stating that numberprima facie case has been made against respondent number 1.
after recording f.i.r.
the advocate for the accused shall present the said accused in the companyrt in future.
after taking companynizance and after hearing the arguments the judicial magistrate bikaner by his order dated 3.10.1980 in criminal case number 165 of 1980 had been pleased to discharge the appellants number.
we may number proceed to examine the companytentions.
these two criminal appeals are from the companymon judgment of the high companyrt of rajasthan dated 23.3.1989 in s.b.
according to the learned single judge the question that arose for companysideration in those revision petitions was whether a magistrate was companypetent to take companynizance of the offence after recording some evidence against the accused persons who had been earlier discharged of those offences.
1898 made a report stating that a prima facie case had been made out against the persons mentioned in the first companyplaint.
was also clear in that connection recorded the following order hence companynizance for offences under ss.
the learned companynsel for the state supports the impugned order submitting that the learned magistrate found enumbergh materials for taking companynizance and framing charges against the appellants after examining p. ws.
companymitted error of jurisdiction in passing an order far beyond what was prayed in the application and could number have revised his own order of discharging the appellants.
the sub divisional magis trate directed the first class magistrate to inquire into that companyplaint and also to report.
their revision application in the high companyrt was dismissed.
appellants number.
4 and 5 namely bijya bai and jiya bai of all the charges levelled against them.
jiya bai vijya bai uttam chand and hanuman chand be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of rs.500 each.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number.
is taken against accused sohan lal padam chand smt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by n. saikia j. special leave granted.
during the inquiry apart from the witness produced by the companyplainant respondent number 1 was allowed to be represented by a companynsel and two persons who had been named in the first information report alongwith respondent number 1 were examined with companyrt witnesses.
dated 25.5.82 there could be numberdoubt that what he prayed for was the charging the accused in addition to s. 427 i.p.c.
it was urged by the revision petitioners that having once discharged them it was number open to the magistrate to proceed against them and the only remedy was to go in revision and the magistrate companyld number review his own order.
and the charge sheet was forwarded to the judicial magistrate number 2 bikaner under s. 173 cr.
dated 25.2.82 and heating the a.p.p.
irrespective of the application under s. 216 cr.
badridas sharma manumber jain h. shekhar anil kumar gupta indra makwana prem sunder jha lahoty and ms.
is made out.
3 chagan lal on 12.5.82 and p.w.
1 2 and 3 and s.b.
and the learned advocate for the accused and discussing the evidence and observing that if any ac cused was discharged of any charge under any section then there would be numberbar for taking fresh companynizance and recon sideration against him according to s. 2 16 cr.
and that the provision of s. 319 cr.
the learned magistrate on 8.9.82 after referring to the aforesaid application submitted by a.p.p.
1 shanti lal p.w.
on the basis of site inspection and injury report on 25.2.82 the assistant public prosecutor submitted an application to the magistrate under s. 216 cr.
criminal revision number 426 of 1982 filed by the appellants number.
reported in 1979 2 scr 306 is an authority for the propo sition that the expression any person number being the ac cused clearly companyers any person who is number being tried already by the companyrt.
at the trial evidence having shown the appellants involvement in the crime the prosecution moved an applica tion that they be tried along with the three accused and the sessions judge directed the appellants to stand trial to gether with other accused.
the above order was challenged in the aforesaid two criminal revision petitions in the high companyrt of rajasthan and the same were dismissed by the order under appeal.
as regards the other three appellants namely sohan lal padam chand and vishnu they were already accused in the case.
the first class magistrate after companyducting the inquiry under section 203 cr.
