It was companytended by the prosecution that the specification of particular sections in the companymittal order did number preclude the Sessions Court from framing a new charge under s. 120 B of the Penal Code.
lie held that there was numbercase against accused Nos.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 30 9 1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.
The case was, therefore, adjourned by the Court for flaming specific charges against them.
After discharging accused Nos.
At the companymencement of the trial before the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, two preliminary questions were raised, one by the prosecution and the other by the, accused.
Thyagaraja Iyer, accused No.
11, 12 and 16 and that they were therefore entitled to be discharged.
10, 13, 14 and 15 and the other by accused Nos.
11, 12 and 16 it came, to the companyclusion that insofar as the other accused were.
The companyplainant Ajit Dutt, Works Manager of the Crossbar Division, attempted to serve the dismissal order on him but he refused to accept it and threatened the companyplainant that he, the companyplainant, was primarily responsible for the dismissal and would have to answer the companysequences.
Judge, turning to the case against the remaining accused, observed that there was some material to hold that they have had something to do with the incident which occurred on 6 12 1973 in the I.T.I. Colony Bangalore.
Two revision petitions were filed against this order, one by accused Nos.
1 and 8 to 20 companyspired to companymit the murder of the companyplainant and that in pursuance of that companyspiracy accused Nos.
By an order dated August 8, 1975 the, learned Judge.
companycerned there was some material to hold that they were companynected with the incident.
The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.
The incident out of which these proceedings arise took place on December 6, 1973 in the Central Avenue of the Indian Telephone Industries Colony, Bangalore.
Mookherjee, and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the Appellant, Frank Anthony, K.B. Rohtagi and M.N. Kashyap, for the Respondents.
1, who was an employee of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. was dismissed from service on September 20, 1973 on the allegation that he had assaulted a Canteen supervisor.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
11, 12 and 16 the learned.
345 346 of 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. These two appeals by social leave arise out of a judgment dated september 30, 1975 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petitions Nos.
The companytention of the accused that they ought to be discharged was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly.
1, 8 and 10 hired accused Nos.
The learned Judge adjourned the case to September 1, 1975 for framing specific charges as made out from the material on record against the rest of the accused persons.
248 and 253 of 1975.
By the aforesaid judgment the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers has quashed proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka appellant herein, against the respond ents.
In other words, the learned Judge adjourned the case number for deciding wheth er any charge at all companyld be framed against the remaining accused but for the purpose of deciding as to which charge or charges companyld appropriately be framed on the basis of the material before him.
