SHAH ID Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision against the order dated 20. 11. 2007 passed by theaddl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Bhadohi, Gyanpur in ST. No. 92/07, Sfafe v. Shahid and others, under Sections 452, 336, 308, 323, 506, 427, I. P. C.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A. G. A. for the State and Mr. Imranullah, learned Counsel for the complainant opp. Party No. 2. With the consent of the parties, I have heard this revision on merits at the admission stage, and I am deciding it finally today at this stage.

(3.) INJURED Afzal Rashid was medically examined on 21. 10. 2006 at 10 A. M. He had contusion on the right temporal scalp besides abrasion and contusion on left forearm and left wrist. Amzad Rashid had received lacerated bone deep wound over the right side of occipital bone and scalp and multiple abrasions over several parts of the body and one contusion on right wrist. No abnormality was detected in the X-ray of Afzal Rashid but in the x-ray of Amzad Rashid crack fracture of right side occipital bone of skull was found. It further appears that during investi gation the first I. O. added the charges under Sections 308 and 452, I. PC. but thereafter the investigation was transferred to another I. O. and he deleted the charges under Sections 308 and 452, I. PC. and submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 336, 325, 323, 427 and 506, I. PC. only. However, the learned Magis trate on that charge-sheet took cognizance under Sections 452, 336, 308, 323, 506 and 427, I. PC. vide his order dated 17. 1. 2007. The above order was chal lenged by the accused revisionist by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 8689 of 2007, Shaheedandothersv. State of U. P and another, under Section 482, Cr. P. C. That application was decided by this Court vide order dated 19. 4. 2007 in which the above order of the Magistrate was maintained and the prayer for its quashing was refused. However, the Court permitted the accused applicants to raise this objection regarding charge at the time of framing the charges. The relevant por tion of the above order is as under: "however, it shall be open to the applicants to raise objection at the time of framing of the charge if they move an application claiming discharge. In case, such an application is moved the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law. "