RAKESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. It is argued by the learned counsel that the name of the person who wrote the F.I.R. is not mentioned in it, that the distance of the place of the occurrence from the police station is mentioned as 21 kms. in the F.I.R. but in the inquest report it is mentioned as 39 kms., that witness Take Chand is an interested person and that no independent person of the locality has been cited as a witness, that the F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate on 29.9.1994 though the occurrence has taken place on 20.9.1994. In support of the contentions learned counsel has cited, 1992 U.P. Criminal Rulings, 567,, 1994 U.P. Criminal Rulings, 325; 1989 U.P. Criminal Rulings, 29 and, 1993 (SC) Criminal Law Journal, 403.

(2.) IT is not necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the case. In passing it can be observed that the mention of the name of the scribe of the F.I.R. is not essential, the discrepancy between the distance of 21 kms. and 19 kms. is very slight, that witness Take Chand is related not only to complainant but also to the accused and that the fact that the Magistrate has written the word or "seen" on the F.I.R. on 29.9.1994 does not mean that the F.I.R. was sent on 29.9.1994. It is possible that the F.I.R. may have been sent on the same day and was brought to the notice of the Magistrate on a later date. In view of the above, the application is rejected. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court should not prejudice the trial court in any way.