JULFICAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three criminal revisions, though they are dealing with the different aspects and different facts and circumstances under which the respective impugned orders framing of charge have been passed in the aforesaid criminal revisions, they are the impugned orders by virtue of which a charge has been framed by the trial Courts in relation to the revisionists therein for the respective offences for which they have been charged to be tried by the trial Courts. The details of each of the Criminal Revisions are as under:- (A)

(2.) In the Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2014 'Julficar vs. State of Uttarakhand' the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 as passed by the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, wherein, in the Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2014, State v. Afjal and others, wherein the Sessions Court has framed the charge as against the revisionist therein for commission of the offence under Section 216-A to be read with Section 34 of IPC which was arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2013, registered against the revisionist for offences under Section 395/397 IPC, at Thana Kotwali, Gang Nahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist had tried to address the Court for drawing an implications from the provisions as contained under Section 216A of the IPC, which reads as under:-