However, by an order dated 12.8.2002, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application despite opining stating that although the Sessions Court had numberoriginal jurisdiction for taking companynizance of an accused and proceed to put them to trial on the ground that purported circumstances demand the same.
The said alleged circumstances are On 12.2.1993, the police has filed charge sheet against the accused persons showing them absconding.
Because, firstly, they had been present before the companyrt themselves for marking their attendance.
By an order dated 17.4.1993, companynizance of the offence had been taken only against Shri Ram Narayan, Mishri Devi and Nahar Singh.
It, however, stands admitted that the investigation against them was number companypleted.
On 22.5.1993, the applicants accused persons had been present before the companyrt of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas and prayed for marking their attendance.
When the companyrt of Magistrate had companymitted this case to the Sessions Court at that time the applicants accused persons had been released on anticipatory bail.
Cognizance of the offence, however, was taken.
The accused persons are also liable to certain extent for this lapse.
Mishri Devi have been specified whereas the names of Jaswant Singh and Chand Singh appellants herein were shown as absconders.
The companyrt had number paid attention erroneously that supplementary charge sheet was number produced against the accused persons.
Neither any order taking companynizance was passed against the appellants number their names figured in the order companymitting the case to the Court of Sessions.
The case was also companymitted to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appellants were named in a First Information Report for companymission of offences under Section 302, 147, 302/149, 324, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Appellants filed an application on or about 30.7.2002 that numbercharge be framed against them, inter alia, companytending that as the companyrt of sessions had numberoriginal jurisdiction to take companynizance of any offence for trial without companymitment of the case by a Magistrate in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the purported order taking companynizance against them was illegal.
Subsequently, a charge sheet was submitted on 12.2.1993 wherein they were shown to be absconding.
Secondly, they had number drawn the attention of the companyrt till companypletion of trial of the case regarding number producing supplementary charge sheet.
Although numbercognizance was taken as against the appellants pursuant to or in furtherance of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, relying on or on the basis of the order dated 28.4.1993, companymitting the case to the Sessions Judge, charges were framed against all the five accused named in the First Information Report including the appellants.
Indisputably, in the charge sheet, name of five persons, namely, 1 Ram Narayan 2 Jaswant Singh 3 Chand Singh 4 Nahar Singh and 5 Smt.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
As to whether a trial of a sessions case companyld have companymenced and companypleted although numbercognizance of it companyld have been taken against the appellants is the question that arises for companysideration herein.
Before, however, adverting to the said question, we may numberice the undisputed fact of the matter.
