GAMMAN @ SHAFIQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (DAA)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Budaun in Special Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2012, under sections 395, 397 IPC against the order dated 10.04.2014 rejecting the discharge application.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the revisionists filed an application for discharge stating that they may be discharged under sections 395, 397 IPC because no case under these sections is made out.

(3.) It has been stated that before this occurrence there is enmity between the parties. It has not been proved that dacoity was committed and the evidence has come that only after the occurrence, the opposite party No. 2 was paid money from the bank. Hence it cannot be said that Rs. 8000/- were snatched from him. Hence in case at hand since revisionists are already facing trial, they need to be discharged under sections 395, 397 IPC.