VINOD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi in S.T. No. 338 of 2001, State Vs. Vinod Pandey, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District-Varanasi, whereby learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against the revisionist and a date for framing charge was fixed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that charge under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the revisionist. It was contended that there is no evidence on record to show that revisionist Vinod Pandey fired at the police party or administrative officers.

(3.) FROM the narration of the FIR and statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. , it is apparent that an unlawful assembly was present on the spot consisting of 500-600 persons, who were pelting stones at the State machinery. Fire was also resorted to by persons in the crowd. The revisionist was the leader of the unlawful assembly and was instigating the crowd to attack the police force and administrative officers. In these circumstances, framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against the revisionist cannot be said to be unjustified. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.