The High Court accordingly set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and directed that the respondents be proceeded against according to law.
The High Court Capoor, J. , on revision, found it unnecessary to companysider the, scope of s. 479A, Cr.
Magistrate First Class, by his order dated June 1, 1959, discharged the accused, holding that the companyplaint was number companypetent as it was barred by sub s. 6 of S. 479A, Cr.
P.C., vis a vis s. 476, Cr.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 1, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc.
In the revision filed against this order the Additional Sessions Judge upheld this view.
might be quashed.
The Magistrate, by his order dated April 5.
P.C., because the, companyplaint had number been filed by or directed to be filed by Shri Harish Chander Gaur, who had disposed of the case ending in the acquittal of Bhagwant Rai.
Nishat Singh Grewal, Ravindra Bana and O. P. Rana, for the appellants.
8 of 1964, in criminal revision, in the High Court, praying that along with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for quashing the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh, the grounds urged by them might also be taken into companysideration.
He, however, declined to interfere with the proceedings pending against the appellants mainly on the ground that the objections number taken by them before the Trial Magistrate had been heard and finally disposed of by Capoor, J., in his order dated April 4, 1961.
Bhagwant Rai and Chhota Ram were tried, under s. 325, I.P.C., read with s. 34, I.P.C., in the Court of Shri Harish Chander Gaur, Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala.
P.C., because two of the offences mentioned in the companyplaint, namely.
On the case going back fresh objections were filed before the Magistrate trying the case but these were overruled.
1957, acquitted both the accused and, inter alia, observed that Bhagwant Rai had been falsely implicated in the case as he was number even present on the, day of the occurrence at Patiala.
8 of 1964 in Cr.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He, however, directed that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
In the meantime, the appellants put in Criminal Miscellane ous Petition No.
157 of 1965.
The matter was then placed before Sharma, J., who held that all the points urged in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition had been taken into companysideration and repelled by Capoor, J., in his order dated April 4, 1961.
193, 195, 211 and 120B, I.P.C., on October 31, 1958, against six persons including the appellants, Ajaib Singh and Malkiat Singh.
On the application of Bhagwant Rai, Shri Joginder Singh Karam garhia, Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, who succeeded Shri Harish Chander Gaur, filed a companyplaint under ss.
Revision No.
P.C. Capoor, J., also held that as the order of Shri Joginder Singh, Magistrate, directing the making of the companyplaint against the respondents was number appealed from and had become final, the companypetency of the Court to make the companyplaint under s. 211, I.P.C., against Jaswant Singh, one of the accused, companyld number be companysidered at that stage.
s.211 and s. 120B, P.C., did number fall within the purview of s.479A. Capoor, J., further held that s. 42 of the Police Act.1861, had numberapplication to a case in which a companyplaint was made by the Court under s. 476, Cr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
8 of 1964 should be placed before another Bench for disposal.
1375 of 1963.
This petition arose out of the following facts.
Capoor, J., accepted the recommendation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and quashed the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent No.
8 of 1964.
The appellants having obtained special leave, the appeal is number before us.
Therefore, what the order said was that the criminal case as a whole was to proceed against all the respondents and so the petitioners companyld number be heard number to say that the case was remanded to the trial companyrt for trial of the respondents for offences punishable under sections 211 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
Shri O. P. Gaur.
Revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the prayer of Kirpal Singh and recommended to the High Court that the criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Patiala.
