M.C. JAIN, J.—This is an application under sec. 482, Cr.P.C., by Harji Ram, Bhanwarsingh, Mansharam and Kirtaram against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 5-10-1978 whereby process was ordered to be issued against the applicants in the case committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, for trial to the court of Sessions.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present application, it would be proper to take notice of some material facts. The prosecution case is, that there was enmity between the complainant party and the accused party in connection with the land dispute. The complainant Bhinwaram along with his brothers wife Gaura and two sons Jetharam and Jagguram were living in their ; field and for some time past his brother Gyanaram, Gumanaram and Gyana-rams wife Mst. Shanti were also living there. It is said that the accused persons armed with weapons, entered into the field of the complainant on the night interwening 16-6-78 and 17-6-78 and assaulted Gumanaram, Gyanaram, Gaura, Mst. Shanti and Jetharam. Gumanaram received 21 injuries out of which two were grievous with sharp adged weapon; Gyanaram had 14 injuries, Mst. Gaura 22, Mst. Shanti 8 and Jetharam 14. These injuries were caused with blunt objects. A report of the occurrance was lodged at the police station, Sandwa, District Churu at 5.00, a.m., on 17-6-78 by one Bhinwaram Meghwal as a result of which F.I.R. No. 24 was registered for the commission of offences under secs. 147, 148, 149, 447, 325, 323 and 379 I.P.C. The police after completion of the investigation presented a charge-sheet against twelve accused persons for the offences under secs. 307, 326, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial vide his order dated 16-8-78.

3. On 7-9-78 the Public Prosecutor presented an application that six more persons, the applicants and Harchandram son of Gumanaram and Rameshwar son of Kesuram, Meghwals, are involved in the commission of the offences, so after taking cognizance against them process may be issued. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the Public Prosecutor, the counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the accused persons, partly allowed the application and issued process against the applicants and the application was rejected in respect of Harchandram and Rameshwar as their names were not mentioned by any of the witnesses in their statements before the police. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the authority of this Court Ajayab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1) took cognizance against the applicants after looking into the statements of Gumanaram, Gyanaram and Jugla recorded by the police under sec. 161, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, this application has been filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no cognizance could be taken by the learned Sessions Judge against the applicants as the applicants were not committed to the court of Sessions. He submitted that Ajayab Singhs case (supra) of this Court needs further consideration in view of the two decisions, one of Delhi High Court Abdul Majid vs. The State (Delhi Administration), of Delhi (2) and the other of Andhra Pradesh High Court Patanachala China Lingaiah vs. The State (3) and a contrary decision of this Court Veera vs. State of Rajasthan (4).

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the view taken in Ajayab Singhs case (supra) needs no further consideration in view of the Supreme Court decision in Joginder Singh vs. The State of Punjab (5), which has over-ruled the Andhra Pradesh case.

7. The main question which arises for consideration in the present application is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge could take cognizance against the applicants on the basis of the record of the case and documents subm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document