When the matter came up before the First Additional Sessions Judge Agra, he ordered suo motu on April 9, 1955, after a perusal of the companymitment order that Bhajan Lal be companymitted to the Court of Session to stand his trial.
149 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 14th January, 1956, of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No.
The Magistrate then heard argu ments on the question of framing of charges which were companycluded on September 23, 1954.
Thereupon on January 7, 1956, the four appellants filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge praying that the order of companymitment passed against them be quashed and the main reason advanced in support of this petition was that the learned Magistrate had number observed the mandatory provisions of law laid down in ss.
That petition was heard by Roy, J., and he set aside the order of companymitment of Bhajan Lal and one of the reasons given by him for doing so was that a Magistrate was number empowered to frame a charge and make an order of companymitment until he had taken all such evidence as the accused might produce before him.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 8th May, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Reference No.
Janardan Sharma, for respondent No.
September 14.
Thereupon Bhajan Lal went in revision to the High Court.
141 of 1954 and Criminal Misc.
On the same date the Magistrate ordered companymitment of the four appellants to the Court of Session on these charges.
409 and 465 read with s. 471 and 477A of the Penal Code.
This order was passed on October 6, 1955.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 of 1956.
Prosecution witnesses were then examined and cross examined and the statements of the accused persons recorded.
The facts of the case may be set out in some detail to bring out the point raised in this appeal.
C. Mathur, C. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the respondent No.
Suffice it to say that after the statement of the companyplainant under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code summonses were issued to the accused persons requiring them to answer a charge under s. 406 of the Penal Code.
143 of 1957.
It is number necessary for present purposes to set out the details of the companyplaint.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This is an appeal oil a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court in a criminal matter.
The remaining three accused were discharged.
A companyplaint was filed by Rajendra Kumar Jain against the four appellants and three others under ss.
On that date the Magistrate framed charges against the four appellants under ss.
S. Pathak and Mohan Behari Lal, for the appellants.
409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of this order he dismissed the revision petition as infructuous.
There was then a revision petition by Rajendra Kumar Jain against the discharge of one of the three accused, namely, Bhajan Lal.
