JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak, J.
1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record including the impugned order dated 12.7.2005.
2. By my last order I remanded the case back to the court of sessions for reconsideration the facts on record including the fact that after the submission of the charge-sheet X-Ray examination approved that the parietal had on linear fracture. The contention of the learned counsel then as well as is that the offence is the serious in nature as the injury caused to the skull is grievous. The blow has been sufficient to cause such a fracture the knowledge on the part of the accused person specially the one who is the author of the injury that it could have caused death as well. Now after receiving the order of the remand the learned Session Judge who was to retire shortly took refuse behind Section 323 Cr.P.C. to circumvent the order of this court.
3. So far as the Section 323 Cr.P.C. is concerned it empowers the judicial Magistrate to commit any case to the court of session on any of the two stages either during the inquiry proceeding or in the midst of the trial. He can do it even at the stage of the judgment. There is such bar upon him prescribed by the section.
4. There can not be any dispute with regard to the exercise of this power of the Judicial Magistrate. However, the facts and evidence in the case are glaring and need a mention judicially.
5. The Investigating Agency normally ought not to have submitted the charge-sheet before the examination report so received and if the charge-sheet was submitted earlier there was no bar to submit the supplementary charge-sheet. It seems that the Investigating Agency was not fair to the investigation. There appears some influence behind the curtain in such a hurried submission of the charge-sheet under minor Sections like 323, 324, 504, 504 IPC as the alleged occurrence appeared to have taken place on -16.12.2001 the charge-sheet was submitted hurriedly on 21.12.2001. The X-Ray report disclosed the fracture on 26.12.2001. The learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the Court of Sessions have completely overlooked this aspect more over the fracture linear on the parietal though constitute the graver offence than Section 323, 324 IPC. The X-Ray report is admissible in evidence. The stage until rejection of the application of the petitioner in that regard was only an inquiry, charges were not framed until that the courts below ought to have applied itself to these facts and circumstances available from the record. The summary manner in which the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the order of remand by this court raises eye brow and gives room for suspicion as the justice is not to be done alone but it must also to have been done. The conduct of the court does assume serious significant, so far as the litigation and public are concerned.
6. In the observations made above the case is again remanded back to the court of sessions for applying its mind to the facts and circumstances in the light of observations made above.
7. The proceeding in case crime No. 81 of 2001 pending before the court concerned shall remain suspended till the result of the remand.
8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.