Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2796 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ajit Singh Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 304 of 2017 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. Ajit Singh) under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S.-Sahibabad, District-Ghaziabad whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Upon perusal of the order dated 26.07.2018, this Court does not find any illegality in the same. Admittedly, the discharge application filed by revisionist after the prosecution evidence was completed, i.e. in terms of Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him."
On the basis of the prosecution evidence as recorded before the court below, the court below has come to the conclusion that even on the unrebutted evidence of the prosecution, the charge levelled against the revisionist can be proved. Therefore, the court below rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist. The said finding could not be dislodged before this Court that even on the unrebutted evidence of the prosecution there are no chances of the revisionist being convicted.
For the reasons given herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present criminal revision. The present criminal revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 YK