The word "may" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 228 Cr. PC is directory, not mandatory, and the Assistant Sessions Judge was not obligated to frame a charge before remitting the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case was not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

Partha Sakha Datta, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 8. 8. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, purulia in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2005 setting aside thereby the order dated 16. 01. 2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia in sessions Case No. 81 of 2002 who by his order transmitted the case under section 228 (l) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Purulia for disposal according to law.

( 2 ) A petition of complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the complainant alleging certain offences under section 148/149/326/327/341 IPC on the ground that at about 11 a. m. on 13. 09. 2000 the petitioner/accused took out an iron rod from one of his labourers and assaulted the complainant on his forehead causing thereby grievous bleeding injuries on his person and when the complainant fell down one of the labourers of the petitioner/ accused dealt a blow of lathi on the right hand of the complainant thereby causing fracture injury on his hand.

( 3 ) THE petition of complaint as aforesaid became the FIR via section 156 (3) Cr. PC and the Purulia Town Police Station submitted chargesheet against the petitioner on 30. 11. 2000 under sections 341/323/326/307 IPC.

( 4 ) THE case being communicated to the Court of Sessions the learned sessions Judge of Purulia transferred the case to the learned Assistant sessions Judge of his sessions division who by the order dated 16. 01. 2004 came to the opinion that the case would be one under section 341/324 IPC and accordingly transmitted the case under section 228 (l) (a) Cr. PC to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia for trial.

( 5 ) AFTER elapse of more than a year since the learned Assistant Sessions judge had transmitted the case to the learned CJM, Purulia the de facto complainant filed a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge, purulia against the said order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge with an application for condonation of delay. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the revisional application to the learned Additional Sessions judge, First Court, Purulia for disposal.

( 6 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Purulia condoned the delay, though not with a speaking order, and allowed the revisional application mainly only two-fold grounds namely (1) the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 228 Cr. PC makes it obligatory upon the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia to frame a charge before remitting the case to the learned CJM, Purulia and since the learned Assistant Sessions judge has not done so the order was unlawful and liable to be set aside, and (2) the opinion of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that the case would fall under section 41/324 of the IPC was not sustainable since even if the case would not be one under section 307 of the IPC it should have been under section 326 IPC on the ground that the de facto complainant-injured, in terms of the injury report had been in the hospital for the period from 13. 09. 2000 to 16. 10. 2000 which squarely falls under the clause, "eighthly.-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain, or, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. " In the order impugned the learned Additional Sessions Judge made some unhappy remarks against the learned Assistant Sessions Judge observing that finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was a biasesd one, that the learned Judge did not adopt the legal procedure, that he did not go through the provisions of the law as well as ingredients of the charge as laid down in section 320 of the IPC and that he should go through the provisions of the law very seriously before passing any such order.

( 7 ) MR. Abhra Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Additional Sessions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document