RAM PRATAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Jain, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the committal order dated 5-2-1994.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 23-9-1993 at about 2. 00 p. m. two persons namely, Abid Ali and Mohd. Salim were murdered. THE F. I. R. , in which six accused were named, was lodged and on that basis a charge-sheet was filed by the police against six persons on 8-11-1993. THE charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C. J. M. However, on 4-2-1994 the committal proceed ings were transferred from the Court of C. J. M. to the Court of A. C. J. M. THE A. C. J. M. passed the committal order on 5-2-1994 and it is the legality of this committal order which is being challenged in this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN view of the seriousness of the allegations I have carefully gone through the record but in my opinion this allegation is not justified Annexure-4, order dated 5-2-1994, is the first order-sheet written by the A. C. J. M. after he received the file from the Court of C. J. M. It is stated in the order-sheet that the case fixed today for committing of accused to the Court of Sessions. It is further recited that the copying section has prapared all the copies and the accused have applied for copies of statements recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and the same have also been got prepared. The order further mentions that the defence counsel objected on the ground that the copies are yet to be compared with the original and, therefore, the copies may not be given to the accused and the case should not be committed on that day. This objection was overruled by the Court on the ground that all the copies have been prepared by the Copying Section of the Court and are true copies and, therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused is not justified. Due to this reluctance on the part of the learned counsel for the accused to accept the copies the A. C. J. M. ordered his office that the copies may be made available to the accused. IN this context the office made a note on the margin that the accused have refused to accept the copies. As the reluctance of the accused to accept the copies is mentioned in the order-sheet itself it cannot be said that the endorsement on the margin is a forged one. It is true that in the certified copy there is no such note in the margin but that may be due to the negligence of the person who prepared the certified copy. This certified copy was applied on 24-2-1994 was prepared on 8-3-1994 and was supplied on 16-3-1994.