Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.- These two appeals by special leave arise out of a judgment dated September 30, 1975 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petitions Nos. 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 respondents.

2. 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. Thyagaraja Iyer, accused No. 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. The complainant 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 complainant that he, the complainant, was primarily responsible for the dismissal and would have to answer the consequences. It is alleged that the I. T. I. Employees Union took up cudgels on his behalf and resolved to support his cause. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 and 8 to 20 conspired to commit the murder of the complainant and that in pursuance of that conspiracy accused Nos. 1. 8 and 10 hired accused No. 2, a notorious criminal, to execute the object of the conspiracy. Accused No. 2 in turn engaged the service of accused Nos. 3 to 7 and eventually on the morning of December 6, 1973 accused Nos. 1 to 6 are alleged to have assaulted the complainant with kinves, thereby committing offences under Ss. 324, 326 and 307 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code. Accused No. 2 was changed separately under S. 307 or in the alternative under S. 326. Penal Code.

3. By his order dated October 23, 1974 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. V. Court, Bangalore directed all the 20 accused to take their trial before the Sessions Court for offences under Ss. 324, 326 and 307 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code.

4. At the commencement 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. It was contended by the prosecution that the specification of particular sections in the committal order did not preclude the Sessions Court from framing a new charge under S. 120-B of the Penal Code. On the other hand it was contended by the accused that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the prosecution and therefore they ought to be discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the prosecution that he had the power to frame a charge under S. 120-B. The correctness of that view was not challenged before us by Mr. Frank Anthony who appears on behalf of the accused. That is as it ought to be because the power of the Sessions Court to frame an appropriate charge is not trammelled by the specifications contained in the committal order. The Sessions Court, being seized of the case, has jurisdiction to frame appropriate charges as the facts may justify or the circumstances may warrant. The contention of the accused that they ought to be discharged was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly. He held that there was no case against accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 and that they were therefore entitled to be discharged. By an order dated August 8, 1975 the learned Judge discharged those three accused in the exercise of his powers under S. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are informed that the correctness of that order is under challenge before the High Court in a proceeding taken by the State of Karnataka. We are not concerned with that order in these appeals. After discharging accused Nos. 11, 12 and 16 the learned 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 wh