PREM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 6.5.1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Etah, whereby charges against the revisionists under sections 365, 368, 302/149 and 201, I.P.C. were framed.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is simple. The revisionists along with co-accused Satish Chand and Mahesh are standing trial in the Court of the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1991 for the offences under sections 365, 368, 302/149 and 201, I.P.C. The charges against these accused persons were framed by the learned Judge on 6.5.1992 for the said offences. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Feeling aggrieved by the framing of charges against them, the revisionists preferred this revision in this Court.

(3.) When this revision was taken up for admission on 24.7.1992, this Court had granted time upto 28.7.1992 to enable the learned counsel of the revisionists to move the trial court for separating the trial of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram on the ground that he is a juvenile. The proceedings of the trial was also directed to be stayed till 28.7.1992. In pursuance of this order, an application was filed on behalf of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram on 25.7.1992 before the learned Special Judge up the aforesaid Sessions Trial claiming that his date of birth is 15.11.1977 and, therefore, he being a juvenile, his trial should be separated. A similar application was also moved before the learned Special Judge on 6.8.1992 and a copy of the certificate of age of the accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram was also filed. It further appears that by order dated 2.9.1992, the learned Special Judge observed that the proceedings regarding the minority of accused Sanjiv were pending before this Court and, therefore, it was not proper for him to proceed in that regard. Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram for separating his trial was not disposed of by the hearted Special Judge.