Petitioners are original accused challenging the order dated 25th June, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.452 of 2006. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application filed by the original complainant and reversed the order dated 29.8.2006 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by which, the accused- present petitioners have discharged in a criminal case.
Against the present petitioners, complaint was lodged before the Police bearing C.R.No.507 of 2000 alleging offence punishable under Sections 365 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 25(C) of the Arms Act. Case of the complainant is that his son was forcibly taken in a vehicle by the accused suspecting that he was involved in theft of diamonds.
Initially upon completion of the investigation, Police filed C Summary. However, upon further investigation ordered by the learned Magistrate, further statements of the complainant and his son were recorded on 14.1.2003. On the basis of such statements, charge-sheet was filed. Thereupon, both the petitioners applied for discharge before the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.1565 of 2003, such discharge application was granted by order dated 29.8.2006. Complainant, however, challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who by impugned order allowed the revision application.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the witnesses i.e. complainant and his son had previously stated before the Police that the son of the complainant was not forcibly taken. The complaint was lodged by the complainant on apprehension and upon coming to the nature of true facts, he had given statements before the Police. He had also filed an Affidavit sworn before the Notary.
From the further statements of both these witnesses, however, it clearly emerges that they have retracted the previous statements and detailed allegation of said offence having been committed by the said accused.
At this stage, it is not proper on my part to comment on reliability and dependability of previous statement and later further statement since while considering the question of discharge of an accused, it is not the scope of inquiry to ascertain whether the case is of certain conviction. If the Court finds that it has some evidence on record to permit further trial against any of the accused, for such accused discharge application cannot be entertained.
In my view, learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon prima-facie, perusal of the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency found that this was not the fit case for discharge. In further revision, I see no reason to take a different view.
It is clarified that the trial Court shall decide all issues on the basis of the evidence that may be brought on record unmindful of observations made in the impugned order or in this order.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is old one, petitioners are permanent residents of Mumbai. Petitioner No.1 is aged about 72 years. They may, therefore, be exempted from personal appearance. If such an application is made, learned Judge shall consider the same sympathetically.
With above observations, present petition is disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (ashish) Top