ZAHIRUL HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 3, Mau in S.T. No. 225 of 2001. Through this order the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed an application moved before him by the learned D.G.C. (Criminal), Mau under Section 321 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the alleged incident had taken place on 8.5.98 at about 10.30 a.m. in village Kurthi Jafarpur, P.S. Kopaganj, Mau. An F.I.R. was lodged by head constable No. 9, Wasim Anwar. According to the FIR a large number of persons in the shape of a crowed of 250-300 strength surrounded the police outpost, Kurthi Jafarpur. THE accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly which was armed with deadly weapons. THE mob had attempted to kill police personnel and other persons, caused simple and grievous hurt to a number of people, damaged properties, used criminal force in order to intimidate public at large and the police personnel and caused simple hurt to the government servants in order to deter them from discharging their official duties. An FIR was lodged with the police on the same day at about 1.45 p.m. in which 52 persons were named. THE matter was investigated and a charge sheet under Sections 147/148/ 149/307/336/332/323/427/506 IPC was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate. THE relevant case crime number was 206/98. THE learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after furnishing copies to the accused persons committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On 10.10.2002 the learned Sessions Judge, Mau framed charges against all the fifty two charge sheeted accused persons under various Sections of Indian Panel Code. THEreafter the learned lower Court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses. It appears that this case was transferred from the Caurt of (earned Sessions Judge to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 3 in due course of administrative distribution of the session trials. On 7.2.2007 the learned D.G.C. (Criminal), Mau submitted an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Objections were filed on this application from the side of the revisionist. After hearing both the parties the learned lower Court on 9.5.2007 disposed of the said application. He allowed the application and permitted the learned D.G.C. (Criminal) to withdraw the case and as a consequence all the accused persons were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) REPLYING to the arguments relating to the locus of the revisionist the learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that in criminal law any person can set Court in motion and stated that on this point law is very clear as has been established by the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay's case (1984) 2 SCC 500.