Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. As to whether a trial of a sessions case could have commenced and completed although no cognizance of it could have been taken against the appellants is the question that arises for consideration herein.

3.3. Before, however, adverting to the said question, we may notice the undisputed fact of the matter.

Appellants were named in a First Information Report for commission of offences under Section 302, 147, 302/149, 324, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, a charge sheet was submitted on 12.2.1993 wherein they were shown to be absconding. It, however, stands admitted that the investigation against them was not completed. Cognizance of the offence, however, was taken. The case was also committed to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although no cognizance 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, committing the case to the Sessions Judge, charges were framed against all the five accused named in the First Information Report including the appellants.

Appellants filed an application on or about 30.7.2002 that no charge be framed against them, inter alia, contending that as the court of sessions had no original jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence for trial without commitment of the case by a Magistrate in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the purported order taking cognizance against them was illegal.

4. 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 no original jurisdiction for taking cognizance of an accused and proceed to put them to trial on the ground that purported circumstances demand the same. The said alleged circumstances are :

"1. On 12.2.1993, the police has filed charge sheet against the accused persons showing them absconding.

1.2. When the court of Magistrate had committed this case to the Sessions Court at that time the applicants/accused persons had been released on anticipatory bail.

.3. On 22.5.1993, the applicants/accused persons had been present before the court of

.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas and prayed for marking their attendance.

2.4. The court had not paid attention erroneously that supplementary charge sheet was not produced against the accused persons. The accused persons are also liable to certain extent for this lapse. Because, firstly, they had been present before the court themselves for marking their attendance. Secondly, they had not drawn the attention of the court till completion of trial of the case regarding not producing supplementary charge sheet.

.5. There had been no deficiency in the case of trial of the applicants/accused persons.

.Charge had been framed against the accused persons and evidence is recorded as per the rules. The learned advocate has cross-examined the witnesses during evidence. Thus, the defence of the accused persons is not prejudiced.

3.6. This is correct that the court of Magistrate has to comply with the provisions of Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code before committing the case to the Sessions Court. Under these provisions, the copy of the charge sheet is given to the defense and the remaining provisions are procedural. In the present case, the copy of the charge sheet is not given to the applicants/accused persons. But it is evident from the pleadings of the defence that the copy of prosecution case is present with them."

It was held :

"In the present case, murder of two persons is committed. In such case, it shall not be justified to close the proceedings against the accused persons merely on the ground of a technical defect. The accused persons have undergone their complete trial.

In view of the above special circumstances, in my opinion, it shall no