Bagula @ Ghanashyam Mohapatra vs State of Orissa

B.K. Patel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

This revision is directed against that part of the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur in G.R. Case No. 254 of 2008 by which the petitioner, who has not been charge-sheeted, was added as an accused along with other accused persons, who have been charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 395 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act.

It appears that on the basis of report submitted by the informant, F.I.R. was registered against unknown culprits for alleged commission of offence u/s 394 of the I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against five persons excluding the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences. Learned J.M.F.C, Ranpur, stating to have found that materials on record reveal involvement of the petitioner also in the commission of alleged offence, directed to issue N.B.W. to compel his appearance.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sri Basu Barad and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2009) 44 OCR 730 : 2009 (Supp. II) OLR 282, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that addition by the Magistrate, at the stage of cognizance, of a person as an accused to a face criminal proceeding along with accused persons who are not charge-sheeted is not permissible in a Sessions case. Such power can be invoked by Court of Sessions only on the basis of evidence adduced during trial in exercise of power u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C.

Having heard from both sides and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the ratio in Sri Basu Barad and Ors. v. state of Orissa (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Petitioner''s name did not figure amongst the accused persons against whom charge-sheet was submitted for commission of alleged offences including offence u/s 395 of the I.P.C. triable by Court of Sessions. While taking cognizance of commission of offences on the basis of charge-sheet, learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur added the petitioner also as an accused and issued process for his appearance which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the impugned order adding the petitioner as an accused in G.R. Case No. 254 of 2008 by the learned J.M.F.C, Ranpur is set aside.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed,

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.