SEYED ALI @ KARATHE ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (after splitting up the case) has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11/9/2012 in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on 11/9/2012 has among other things observed that "..... In the considered opinion of this Court, a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution through the final report and the documents submitted therewith and therefore, the discrepancies in the investigation, if any, shall be disproved by the Accused during the trial stage" and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.

(3.) IT is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners name have not been mentioned in the First Information Report that the Defacto Complainant and the Second Accused are residents of the same street, but the Defacto Complainant mentioned in his complaint the Accused No.2 and 3 as two unnamed Accused.