1. - The accused petitioners (Kalura, Pokharmal and Dalaram) have challenged the order of the learned trial Court whereby it has rejected application filed Under section 227 Criminal Procedure Code and thereupon framed charges against them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 323, 325, 302 read with and alternatively Section 149 Indian Penal Code.

2. In a very narrow compass, facts leading to this revision petition are that Banwarilal lodged a report on 18.1.99 at 8.30 AM at PS Ranoli that while his father (Bhaguram) was sitting on his grocery shop and Phoolchand s/o Banwarilal (all sons of Bhaguram) and Phoolchand s/o Banwarilal were also present there, then they saw Durga Prasad, Bhaguram, Pokhar (all sons of Jhootharam), Ashok S/o Durtraram. Babulal S/o Narayan, Prahlad S/o Devaram, Dolaram S/o Chandraram, Gokal S/o Chandraram, Prabhuram S/o Chandraram, Mohan S/o Amraram, Bholaram S/o Kaluram. Kaluram S/o Ganeshram and 5-6 other persons duly armed with Farsi, Kulhari and lathies, coming from the side of the village, and thereafter they started beating them as a result thereof Bhaguram (father of complainant), Babulal, Dhaklaram, Boduram, Phoolchand sustained a number of injuries on their persons and during the quarrel, his father and persons present there raised hue and cry, upon hearing which Ramkumar S/o Shankerlal, Bhagwana and Moomchand besides other villagers also reached at the spot. On the aforesaid report, police registered criminal case and started investigation. After usual investigations, the police had submitted charges sheet against the accused persons keeping the investigation pending Under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code against present petitioners (Kaluram, Pokkhar & Dalaram), Prahlad and whereafter charge-sheet was filed against Prahlad and Ashok in Juvenile Court, and supplementary charge-sheet against the present revision petitioners on 16.12.99. However, at the time of hearing on framing of the charges, application was filed by the present petitioners under Section 227 Criminal Procedure Code for discharging them but while rejecting the same under the impugned order dated 1.7.2000 the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 325, 302/149 Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions with reference to the record which was called for by this Court on 22.12.2000. Much emphasis was stressed upon by Shri Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners by strenuously contending that neither initial investigation was conducted against petitioners nor the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against them Under Section 229 Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as except name of Girdhari Lal SHO no other witness was included in the list annexed to the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 16/18.12.1999. Another contention advanced by Shri Garg is that from the date of filing supplementary charge-sheet i.e. 16.12.99 till the charges were framed on 1.7.2000, out of 28 witnesses, 19 witnesses could have already been examined and were cross- examined, therefore, on the basis of material appearing in the evidence recorded during trial no charges could have been framed by the trial Court under the order challenged in this petition.

4. Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code is a part of Chapter XXIII which relates to Evidence in inquiries and trials. Part A of Chapter XXIII Criminal Procedure Code deals with mode of taking and recording evidence and it covers Sections 272 to 283, whereas Part B deals with Commissions for the Examination of Witnesses covering Sections 284 to 299 Criminal Procedure Code A careful perusal of Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code makes it explicitly clear that it empowers the Court competent to try or commit for trial, to examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution and record their depo