JEET NARAIN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri L.K. Dwivedi, counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dileep Kumar and S.P.S. Parmar, counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The Criminal Revision No. 744 of 2010 has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, District Mirzapur in S.T. No. 35 of 1995, State Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra and another under Section 302 I.P.C. rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist. This revision has been connected with Criminal Revision No. 813 of 2010, Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P., which has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Mirzapur in S.T. No. 35 of 1995, State Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra and another under Section 302 I.P.C. rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist. Thus, both the revisions are arising out of same sessions trial, hence, they are connected although these revisions have been preferred against different orders.

(3.) The revisionist Jeet Narain Mishra in Criminal Revision No. 744 of 2010, moved a discharge application before the trial court stating that the occurrence is being alleged to have taken place on 25.5.1980 at 8.30 p.m. on which date and time the accused was in district jail Chaukaghat for offence under Sections 113, 132 of Railway Act, Police Station G.R.P. Mugalsarai by the order of the Railway Magistrate, Varanasi from here he was released on bail on 29.5.1980. Since he was in jail at the alleged time and date of the occurrence, he claimed parity with the accused Ram Chandra @ Lal Sahab and Hyder, who were discharged by this Court on the same ground.The accused submitted certain papers, vide list 108 'Kha', being information supplied by the Jail Superintendent, Varanasi and copy of the hawalat register alleging his presence in the jail at the time of occurrence. After hearing the discharge application the trial court rejected the discharge application, vide order dated 22.12.2009.