The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for filing a discharge application during the trial of a Sessions case, and once the charge is framed, the court cannot revert back to Section 227.

JUDGMENT :

Pradip Mohanty, J. - In this revision, the Petitioners call in question correctness of the order 14.11.2007 passed by the Learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 44/158 of 2007/2005, S.T. No. 45/221 of 2007/2006 and S.T. No. 46/131 of 2007 rejecting their application for discharge.

2. The Petitioners are some of the accused persons in the above noted S.T. cases. Initially, the Petitioners and 12 other accused persons were charged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 294, 286, 354, 307, 302 and 149 Indian Penal Code read with Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. But, on the basis of a petition filed by the prosecution, the Trial Court by order 04.10.2007, after hearing both parties and on consideration of materials available on record, altered the charge and those 12 accused persons were charged u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and Sections 147/148/307/323/149 and 354/149 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act. The charges against other accused persons remained the same. The Petitioners filed a petition u/s 227 Code of Criminal Procedure. to discharge them on the grounds mentioned therein. But the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri after hearing the parties rejected the said petition on 14.11.2007.

3. Mr. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as per the F.I.R., out of 81 accused persons, specific allegation exists only against four accused persons. There is no material to proceed against the other accused persons. Out of village enmity, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the accused persons, although there is no iota of evidence against them. Therefore, in pursuing the trial against such accused persons against whom there is no evidence, not only tremendous amount of public time and money would be spent but there would also be no end result inasmuch as the trial against such accused persons is bound to end in acquittal. But the Trial Court instead of considering this aspect of the matter, rejected the application for discharge holding it to be without any merit.

4. Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that charge was framed in 2006 and was altered against 12 accused persons on 4.10.2007. Those 12 accused persons are not the Petitioners here. Moreover, nine witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application, which was filed in the midst of hearing, by assigning reasons.

5. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the informant also supports the above contention and submits that there is no scope for the Trial Court to entertain an application u/s 227 Code of Criminal Procedure. for discharge in the midst of the trial as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not recognize the same. He also submits that the present petition, so far as it relates to Petitioners No. 21, 41 and 47 is not maintainable since one Criminal Revision had been preferred by them challenging the rejection of such discharge petition, which was subsequently withdrawn. Successive revisions challenging the self-same order are not maintainable in the eye of law.

6. Learned Counsel for the parties, In support of their contentions, relied upon the decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar and Another Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal AIR 1979 SC 866, K.P. Raghavan and Another Vs. M.H. Abbas and Another Almohan Das and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, .

7. Perused the records of this case and Criminal Revision No. 519 of 2006, written notes of argument filed by the respective parties and the decisions cited on their behalf. The crux of the case is, whether successive dischar