Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3671 of 2018 Revisionist :- Mohammad Sayeed @ Gama And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the instant revision the applicants are assailing the validity and veracity of the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Rampur on 19.07.2018 by which the discharge application on behalf of the revisionists, who are five in number, was rejected and on the same day charges were famed by learned Sessions Judge against the revisionists.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has strenuously argued that the assailing order of the learned Sessions Judge is on two grounds- (i) the charge sheet was filed by the police in information of paragraphs 122 of the U.P. Police retaliation as such charge sheet has to be decided within 8 weeks from the registration of the FIR but it was submitted beyond the aforesaid prescribed period (ii) if the prosecution version is taken to be face value, the case would not fall beyond Section 325 IPC or 304 Part-II of IPC.
On the aforementioned grounds the learned counsel for the revisionists has tried to challenge the order impugned dated 19.07.2018.
On the perusal of record, it is clear that the incident is of 02.05.2017 around 02:30 hours and the FIR lodged on 02.05.2017 by Raees Ahmad against 10 named accused persons. The allegations made in the FIR that the informant's mother was assaulted by named accused persons which resulted into the said demise of his mother. The charge sheet of this case was submitted by the police after conducting the investigation on 01.08.2017 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 05.08.2017. Needless to mention here that the charge sheet was submitted under sections 147, 302, 452 IPC and the period of limitation has been clearly dealt in Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C./ Bar to take cognizance after lapse of certain period of limitation. After taking into account that the cognizance has been taken on 05.08.2017 itself cannot be said that the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, learned Magistrate has wrongly taken the cognizance, which would be sufficient or good ground for discharging the named accused persons.
There is a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the dealing scope of discharge and the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a constant stand that while considering the discharge, they will not hold a mini trial at the stage of deciding the discharge. So far as, the case would not fall beyond Section 325 or 304 Part-II of IPC. This is a matter of evidence and has to be sole appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge at the time of trial. After taking the early stage of entire deposition and material on record, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order dated 19.7.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur and consequently, the present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
It is expected from the learned trial judge to gear up the trial and make the necessary endorsement to conclude the same as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Nisha