K.S. LODHA, J.—This revision has been filed by three accused persons against the order dated December 18, 1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar for quashing the proceedings and setting aside the order framing the charges against them.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The order has been challenged before me by the learned counsel on two counts : (1) so far as the accused Bachansingh is concerned, it has been argued that the learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, could not have proceeded against this accused, as, admittedly, he was a military employee and could not be proceeded against without complying with rules 3 and 4 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under s. 475, Cr.P.C. and as a matter of fact in this case proper compliance with these Rules has not been made. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed upon Suptd- & Remembrancer of Legal affairs, W. B. Vs. Usha Ranjan (1) and Delhi Police Vs. Lt. Co. S.K. Loraiya (2) and it was pointed out that these Rules have been held to be mandatory and non compliance thereof has vitiated the proceedings; and (2) as regards the other two petitioners, it has been urged that the incident out of which this case has arisen, had taken place on April 16, 1977. More than 10 years have already passed and the trial has not yet started. In these circumstances, the petitioners are liable to be discharged as their right of speedy trial has been jeopardized. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Madheswardhari Singh Vs. State of Bihar (3). As a second limb of argument it was also pointed out that no charge under sec. 307, I. P. C. could have been framed against the petitioners and the case would not travel beyond sec. 324, I. P. C. as the gun-shot injuries have not hit any vital part of the injured, but the injuries had been caused in the lower extremities only. In this connection reliance has been placed upon Madansingh vs. State of Rajasthan(4), Ashok Singh vs. State of Raj. (5), and Harji v. State of Rajasthan (6). Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand had refuted these contentions and has urged that the compliance of rules 3 and 4 has properly been made and in any case, the proceedings have been initiated on the concurrence of the Officer commanding and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same. As regards the second contention, he urged that the delay in the trial is attributable to the accused them selves and therefore, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. Regarding the charge, he urged that in the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in framing the charge under sec. 307, I. P. C.

4. in order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be stated. The incident, out of which this matter has arisen had taken place on April 15, 1977 at about 7.00 or 7.15 P.M. when Hansa Singh was standing out-side the house of Nihalsingh, he heard the accused and one Kapoorsingh, who were taking liquor at the liquor shop nearby, saying that Mangalsingh be got arrested and when his sons come back from the field, they may be caught and done to death. At that time Kuldeepsingh and Hajoorsingh were seen coming from the field and when they reached near the liquor shop, Bachansingh fired pistol on them, which hit Kuldeepsingh. Faujasingh also fired a pistol, which hit Hajoorsingh. Darshansingh fired twice or thrice in the air and Kapoorsingh asked them not to leave the victims. Mean-while, some other persons reached the spot and thereupon the accused fled away. The injured were taken to the Ganganagar Hospital and a report was lodged by Hansasingh at the Police Station. Chunawad on April 16, 1977 at about 3.00 A. M. After investigation, the police filed a final report holding that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document