In the meantime a petition had been filed on April .1, 1961, praying that the appellant be summoned by the Magistrate.
P. Accused number sent up for trial is discharged.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 10, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
On the same day Mahesh Sao, P. W. 2, also implicated the appellant in his examination in chief.
Other accused will reattend.
His name was, however, mentioned in companyumn No.
12 dated 234 3 61 u s 149/302/201 P. C. received against the accused numbered in company.
2 of the Charge Sheet under the heading number sent up.
taken u s 149/302/201 1.
The police accepted the alibi and did number include his name as an accused in the final report under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Danial Latifi and K. K. Sinha, for the appellant.
The police investigated the case and during the investigation the appellant set up an alibi.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Secondly, it was urged that the order of the Magistrate was irregular as he had summoned the appellant on the same grounds on which the Sub.divisional Magistrate had discharged him.
Jagannath Sao, P. W. 1, was examined and in his examinations he implicated the appellant as one of the persons who were present in the mob which is alleged to have killed Rupan Singh.
it was urged before him that the Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to summon the appellant because the Sub divisional Magistrate had already dismissed a protest petition on merits.
189 of 1964.
The Sub divisional Magistrate had acted on the Police report alone but the Magistrate took into companysideration the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses examined in companyrt as well.
896 of 1961.
P. C. and case transferred to Sri L. P. Singh Magt class for enquiry under Chapter XVIII Cr.
On April 5, 1961, the Sub divisional Magistrate passed the following order S. No.
Examined P. W. 2 also in chief.
The appellant then filed a criminal revision before the High Court.
The relevant facts for appreciating the points raised before us are as follows The appellant was one of the 15 persons mentioned as assailants in the First Information Report dated July 29, 1959, lodged by one Raja Ram Sah.
So issue number bailable W A against Raghubans Dubey according to address given by W. today as the allegation against Raghubans be very serious one.
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 Judicature of Patna dismissing Criminal Revision No.
Send the process peon returnable by 3 6 1961.
896 of 1961 filed by the appellant Raghubans Dubey.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
At this stage one petition has been filed by lawyer of accused that cross examination of P.W.s be allowed to be done after appearance of Raghubans.
He has also named Rahgubans to be a member of the mob of these accused at the time of occurrence.
3 and 4 of C. S. Cog.
Dubey also in this enquiry as accused.
Before the High Court it was urged, first, that the petition dated April 11, 1961, was, a petition of companyplaint and, therefore, summoning the appellant on the basis of a petition of companyplaint would result in a separate companyplaint case and he companyld number be tried along with the other accused under s. 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It appears that the companynsel for Raja Ram Sah, the person who lodged the I.R., requested the Magistrate to summon the appellant as well for trial, as prayed for in the petition dated April 11, 1961, The Magistrate, after hearing the Assistant District Prosecutor as well as the companynsel for the informant and the accused, passed the following order Raghubans is named in F. I. R. and as submitted by A. D. P. 5 witnesses have named him before police and P. W. 1 examined before me has also named him.
On transfer, Shri L. P. Singh, Magistrate, took up the hearing of the case on May 1961.
The appellant challenged this order before the Sessions Judge.
On May 2, 1961,.
