STATE OF U.P. Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by State against the order dated 26.04.2002 of discharge passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat in ST No. 59 of 2002 State Vs. Jai Singh for offences relating to case crime no. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 of 1994 relating to PS-Ghatampur, District - Kanpur Dehat.

(2.) Charge sheet was filed by police in said case. Some accused persons appeared and some remained absconded. Therefore the case of absconder accused was separated and Sessions trial No.139 of 1996 was carried out against other accused in said case. During trial, all witnesses turned hostile, therefore, accused persons were acquitted by concerned Court. After some time other co-accused person, who was absconding earlier, appeared before the Court and Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2002 State Vs. Jai Singh was initiated against said accused Jai Singh. At that time after hearing the prosecution side on question of framing of charge in ST No.59 of 2002, the trial court had discharged the said accused Jai Singh on ground that all the witnesses relating to his case had already deposed in Sessions trial no. 139 of 1996 against prosecution case relating to said matter. Trial court had found that on basis of evidences already given by witnesses of charge-sheet in Court relating same matter, other co-accused have been acquitted and those evidences are admissible evidence. So on basis of evidence of those witnesses, prosecution cannot be held in ST No.59 of 2002. Accordingly the order of discharge dated 26.04.2002 was passed by Sessions Court, that has been challenged in present revision.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing on behalf of revisionist State submitted that at least witnesses should have been given opportunity to give their evidences in support of the charge and after it Court should have passed appropriate order. His submission is that in earlier Sessions trial no.139 of 1999 accused persons were acquitted after framing of the charge, therefore in later sessions trial of accused Jai Singh relating to same matter charge should have been framed. therefore the order of discharge is erroneous.