FHAOL CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. The only grievance of the revisionist is that the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge in Revision did not consider proper aspect the pcovison of Section 145 (5), Cr. P. C. The learned Judge held that the Magis trate should have considered all the materials produced before him at the time of passing the impugned order aloag with the police report filed in con nection with this proceeding. Accordingly I do not find that the learned Sessions Judge has done any wrong in deciding the matter and I do not find anything to interfere

(2.) THE learned counsel has submitted that the revisionist has already icudered his evidence. So the Magistrate should consider basides the police report other materials produced before him and also consider whether there is any ground to proceed with or to drop the matter. A question has been raised whether the learned Magistrate can dispose of the application under Sec tion 145 (5), Cr. P. C. after entering into evidence. But this fact have not beea seriously challenged. I refrain from passing any order to that effect touching the merit of the proceeding. What is required is that the learned Magistrate shall reconsider the matter upon materials those are available before him and pass an order according to law. Be if stated that above observation is made for the disposal of this application. THE Masistrat shall not the cognizance of it at the time of disposing of the proceed Before parsing the final order be shall not pass any interim order with regard to the disposal of the property. THE final order would be passed as expe'ditiou4v as possible.