IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.44992 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2007 Thana -MASRAKH District- SARAN ===========================================================
1. Arbind Tiwari @ Arbind Tirpathi son of Jai Deo Tiwari
2. Lallan Tiwari @ Lallan Tripathi son of Jai Deo Tiwari
3. Ashok Kumar Tiwari son of Ramjanam Tiwari
4. Anil Kumar Tiwari son of Ramjanam Tiwari
5. Chabinath Tiwari son of late Dharamdeo Tiwari
6. Badrinath Tiwari @ Badri Nath Tripathi son of late Dharamdeo Tiwari
7. Niranjan Kumar Tripathi @ Niranjan Tiwari son of Sarbdeo Tiwari,
8. Suranjan Tiwari @ Suranjan Tripathi son of Sarbdeo Tiwari
9. Lal Babu Tiwari @ Chandra Bhushan Tiwari @ Bani Bhushan Tripathi son of Bishwanath Tiwari
All residents of Village- Ghoghia, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Madhusudhan Tiwari son of late Ram Prit Tiwari All residents of Village- Ghoghia, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra
.... .... Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Opposite Party no.2: Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Adv. ===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 10-10-2017
Heard the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the revisional order dated 18.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Chapra in Sessions Trial No.667 of 2013 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused to allow the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused petitioners for discharge.
1
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44992 of 2014 dt.10-10-2017 2 A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Chapra would show that it is well discussed and reasoned order passed on the material available on the record. No illegality or infirmity with the order is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners.
It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge the Court is not required to see whether there will be an ultimate conviction of accused on the basis of the materials on record. The only thing which is required to be seen is that as to whether there are sufficient materials to satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged.
This Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order in view of the fact that it is well discussed and reasoned order.
The application stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Arvind/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 14.10.2017 |
| Transmission Date | 14.10.2017 |
2
Comments