JUDGMENT

Brij Mohan Lal, J. - This is an application in revision by two persons, viz. Nand Gopal Misir and Keshari Singh against an order of a Magistrate first class Ballia summoning them to stand their trial for offenses punishable under Sections 20 (B), -'165, 384 and 38fi, Indian Penal Code, No evidence has yet been recorded against the applicants, nor has any charge been framed The magistrate has so far done nothing against 'he applicants except issuing the summonses. It is the order issuing the summonses which is challenged.

2. It appears that one Rama Shanker, a resident of district Ballia, has Home business at Howrah- He had a servant by the name of Sudama He suspected him of having committed a theft. He dismiss A him and got a pronote of R3. 500/- executed by him. It is alleged that Sudama gob annoyed with Rama Shanker and wanted to avenge himself against the wrong which Rama Shanker was supposed to have done to him. It is the prosecution case that he contacted Kunwar Singh and Sarju Raut. On 15-8-1947 Rama" Shankar's son was at his ancestral houaa in the district of Ballia and hid gone out to see the celebrations in connection with the Independence Day. From there he did not return home. On l6-8-lfa4 Rama Shankar who Was at Howrah received a telephone trunk call from Banaras to the effect that Sudama and two servants of K' Jnwar

3. Singh bad been seen kidnapping the boy towards Calcutta. Rama Shankar lodged a report the sama day in the police station Gola Bari at Howrah and also met Kunwar Singh. The latter demanded a ransom of Ra. 25,000/- and advised Rima Shankar to see the present applicants-Rama Shankar mat them also but nothing was settled. Next day, there was again an interview between Rama Shankar on the one hand, the two applicants and some other persons on the other and it was settled that a ransom of Rs. 10,000/-would be paid A sum of Rs- 7,000/- was to be Paid before the delivery of the boy and the balance of Rs- 3,000/- was to be paid after the boy had been recovered-Rama Shankar took precaution of informing the S. P. also and the latter initialed 70 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which were to be delivered to the applicants and their companions- These note3 were given at the applicants and their companions. On 28 8- 947 one Kesho Misir restored the boy to the members of his family in district Ballia. Ho was arrested then and there.

4. A complaint was filed by Rama Shankar against the two applicants and Kunwar Singh at Howrah on 25 8-1947 under Sections 334 and 420, Indian Penal Code. This complaint is still pending and as many as 26 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. The police authorities at Ballia also investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet on 8 0-1917 under Sections 3(33 and 120 (B) against Sudama Abir, his father, Ramdeo Ahir, Kesho Misir, Kunwar Singh, Gaya Prasad, Sarju Raut and Tirbe i Ahir. It may be pointed out that the preset it applicants were not included in the array of the accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted-Later of, the police authorities got the charge sheet amended and substituted the offence u/s 36 in place of Section 363, Indian Penal Code.

6. Two P. Ws. were examined on 2-9-19 L9 at Ballia- The third person to enter the witness-box was Rama Shankar. During the course of his examination the Public Prosecutor presented a petition praying that the present applicants be summoned to stand their trial for offences under Sections 120 (B) 365, 384 and 386. This application was allowed by the learned magistrate and summonses were issued to the applicants. It is this order of the magistrate which is sought to be revised-It may be pounded out at this stage that an application was made to the Howrah magistrate to stay the proceedings pending in court on the ground that a case was pending at Ballia also. The learned magistrate turned down that request and his order was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Howrah The matter was not pursued further and the Calcutta High Court