PRAMOD RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) Considering the nature of the order that is being passed, I do not consider it necessary to call for a reply or the records of the court below, as the relevant material has already been brought on the record. The learned A.G.A. also does not pray for time to file a counter-affidavit, as the same would only delay the proceedings.

(3.) By this revision, the revisionist, who is the informant,? has challenged the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 270 of 2011, whereby the application of the revisionist, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to add Vijay Narayan Rai as accused, has been rejected.