In the case against the appellants in Crl.
On February 28, 1962 the prosecution moved a petition for stay of proceedings on the ground that it wanted to prefer an application for revision of the order of January 25, 1962.
or proceeding signature of taken with the Court date 1.27 10 1960 All the 4 accused are present Heard both sides.
They plead number guilty.
The charge was framed u s 392, I.P.C. after hearing the parties.
The relevant portion of his order sheet of that date reads thus Accused absent.
The informations also stated that some of these persons paid part of the money and were given time to pay the balance while some agreed to pay the amounts demanded.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.165 168 of 1962.
Persued the record.
These charges relating to three incidents on 3 dates will companystitute a separate single case.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1962 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos.
On this day the Magistrate passed an order to the following effect 30 3 62 All the 2 accused persons are present.
Accused as before.
They plead number guilty.
In the other four cases trial had companye to a close in that all the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses had been examined and the cases had been closed for judgment.
The case has entered in the defence stage. ,
A. 165 of 1962 the challan was presented on October 27, 1960.
Upon informations given by these persons offences under s. 392, Indian Penal Code, were registered by the station officer and after investigation five challans were lodged by him, in the companyrt of Magistrate.
It would appear from the order sheet of March 29, 1962 that the Magistrate heard the parties and ordered the case to be put up on the next day, that is March 30, 1962.
Four informations were lodged at the police station, Ghora Saha on April 14, 1960 by different persons against the different appellants in these cases and a similar information was lodged against some of the appellants by one Mali Ram.
That was rejected and the appellants have companye here by special leave.
Start separate order sheet for both.
There is companyflict of authority on the question whether under S. 437, Cr.
First Class at Motihari.
On that date a second application was made for companymitting the case to a companyrt of Sessions.
527 to 530 of 1962.
Nuruddin Ahmad and U. P. Singh, for the appellants.
In all these cases the allegations made by the informants were that each set of the accused persons armed with deadly weapons went to the shops of the various informants, demanded from them large sums of money and threatened them with death if they failed to pay the amounts demanded by them.
This was disposed of by the learned Magistrate on January 25, 1962.
Immediately thereafter a revision application was preferred, number by the prosecution, but by Sagarmal, an informant in one of the other three cases.
Summons W. for 26 10 60 and 27 11 60.
All accused to appear with D.Ws without fail.
Am application was made for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court.
166 of 1962, 167 of 1962 and 168 of 1962.
Discussed law point Charge u s 302, I.P.C. framed against accused Thakur Ram and Jagarnath Pd.
A companymon question arises in these appeals from a judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing four revision applications preferred before it by four sets of appellants in the appeals before us.
One of the cases ended in an acquittal but we have number been informed of the date of the judgment in that case.
An application for revision was preferred by the appellants before the High Court and the main ground urged on their behalf was that the Sessions Judge had numberjurisdiction to pass an order for companymitment as there was numberorder of discharge by the Magistrate.
Accused as before.
P.C. I do number find that it is a case exclusively companying u s 386 or 387 I.P.C. Hence the prosecution prayer is rejected.
The trial dragged on for nearly 15 months and then the prosecution made an application to the companyrt for framing a charge under S. 386 or s. 387, Indian Penal Code and for companymitting the case to a companyrt of Sessions.
No reference book is produced.
Put up on 28 2 62.
On March 17, 1962 the defence case was closed and the case was fixed for March 29, 1962 for arguments.
This case will companystitute an independent case.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. This judgment will also govern Crl.
P. Varma and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
and explained to them.
TR 320/60.
A petition for their representation u s 540 A, Cr P.C. is filed.
Counsel on both the sides agree that since the relevant facts of all the proceedings are similar and the question of law arising from them is the same it will be sufficient to refer to the facts of Case No.
A.I.R. 1955 Andhra 48.
The order sheet of that date reads as follows Date of order Order with the Office action No.
Allowed.
Sd O. Nath.
As for the other parts of the alleged occurrence accused Jagarnath, Kamal Ram and Bansi Rain are charged separately u s 384, P.C. and further accused Thakur Ram u s 384/109, I.P.C. and explained to the respective accused.
This point was number introduced ever before.
Having carefully gone through the law points and section 236 Cr.
Stay was refused and the case was proceeded with.
P.C. a Sessions Judge can, in the absence of an express order of discharge, direct companymitment of a case to it while the trial is proceeding before a Magistrate in respect of offences number exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.
