SITARAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This revision is preferred by the revisionists Sita Ram, Puttu Singh, Shiv Dutta, Vishnu Datta, Jagat Narain, Udit Narain, Babboo and Bhwani Deen against the judgment and order dated 7-4-1988 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1987 whereby the revision was allowed and set aside the order dated 30-3-1987 passed by the learned CJM Hamirpur in Criminal case No. 232 of 1987 arising out of case crime No. 213-A of 1986, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC P. S. Biwar, district Hamirpur and the matter was remitted to the Court of learned CJM to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of being heard to the complainant.

(2.) HEARD Sri V. S. Singh learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the order dated 30-3-1987 passed by the learned CJM was not illegal because after considering the material collected by the IO during investigation which was available in the case diary and after applying judicial mind the learned CJM Hamirpur accepted final report and rejected protest petition. Even according to facts and circumstances of the case there was no cross version of the alleged occurrence but for another incident a crime No. 213-A of 1986 was marked at the police station. The learned CJM has accepted the final report, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and passed a well reasoned order. IT is further contended that the impugned order dated 7-4-1988 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur is illegal. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge has not applied his judicial mind and set aside the order dated 30-3-1987 and without any reason the matter was remitted to the Court of learned CJM to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of being heard to the complainant. In fact, there was no need to remit the matter for passing a fresh order.