RANVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 31 -5 -2005 passed by Sri R.R. Agarwal Sessions Judge Nainital in criminal appeal No. 30 of 2004 whereby he allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1 -12 -2004 of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and remanded back the case to the trial court to proceed with the case from the stage of recording the statement of the accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the revisionist was an employee in HMT factory Ranibagh and on 4 -3 -1993 at 6.30 p.m. balance wheel 2622 weighing 256.5 grams amounting to Rs. 4500/ - was recovered from his possession. He was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and after appraisal of evidence on record the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to two years RI under Sections 380 and 411 IPC under each count vide judgment and order dated 1 -12 -2004. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist filed the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Nainital and the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order as mentioned above.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal of the revisionist and set aside the order dated 1 -12 -2004 of the learned trial court and he not only set aside the conviction of the revisionist but allowed the appeal in toto. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further contended that the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the appeal committed error in remanding back the case to the trial court and contended that the learned Sessions Judge while recording the finding has not gone through the merit of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the trial court has recorded the statement of the revisionist under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in a most cursory, casual and perfunctory manner and as such the case was remanded back to the trial court only to record the statement of the revisionist under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter to take the evidence of the defence. It was further contended by the learned A.G.A. that the learned Sessions Judge has only set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal and remanded back the case for recording the statement of the revisionist under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not afforded any opportunity to the prosecution to adduce the evidence in support of its case.