Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2337 of 2018 Revisionist :- Amit Srivastava @ Ulli Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been filed to quash the impugned orders dated 23.5.2018 and 19.5.2018 passed by the learned A.S.J./F.T.C. Court No.1, Jhansi in S.T. No. 336 of 2013, (State Vs. Amit Srivastava), in Case Crime No. 411 of 2012, under Sections 354, 376, 511 IPC, whereby the learned court below has direct to framed the additional charge under Section 354 IPC.
Admittedly earlier the applicant had approached this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 1043 of 2016 against the order framing charge under Sections 354A and 354B IPC. One argument raised at that stage appears to be that though the incident was of year 2012, the aforesaid provision were first incorporated with retrospective effect from 3.2.2013, by Act No. 13 of 2013. In that light, this Court has observed as under:-
"It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the revisionist that the charge has been framed under sections 354-A and 354-B I.P.C. which has been inserted by Act No.13 of 2013 w.e.f. 3.2.2013 whereas the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 27.7.2012. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the order framing charge is liable to be quashed which can be said to be mere irregularity in framing the charge. To that extent the court below may pass fresh order, if any, in accordance with law."
It appears that in light of the last sentence in the aforesaid observation, the learned court below has passed fresh order by which it has made additional charge under Section 354 IPC.
In view of the fact noted above, there is no error in the order passed by the learned court below.
In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Mini