LAWS(ALL)-2007-1-23

ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 22, 2007
ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The revisionist is aggrieved by an order- dated 19-10-2006 passed S. D. Paliwal, Special Judge (D. A. A.) Etawah (in special Case No. 33 of 2004) discharging the opposite parties No. 2 to 10 for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B and 364-A, I. P. C. in crime No. 357 of 2003, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah.

(2.) I have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Government Advocate and have gone through the impugned order dated 19-10-2006.

(3.) WITH such a limited scope of scanning the material under Section 227/228 Cr. P. C. when I examine the impugned order dated 19-10-2006 passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.) Etawah, I find that the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the said order is wholly illegal and beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 227/228 Cr. P. C. Special Judge (D. A. A.) Etawah who is personally present in Court today stated that he had six years experience as a Sessions Judge. This fact makes the impugned order worse. Under Section 228 Cr. P. C. the Special Judge had no power to go into the niceties of the evidences to scan it in all its pros and cons, critically appreciate it, and even record of finding of discharge contrary to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. , which by itself was sufficient to frame charges against the accused persons as he had done all this in the impugned order. I may remind here that a statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. by itself is admissible in evidence under Section 80 of the Evidence Act. Special Judge (D. A. A.) Etawah committed a manifest error of law in not giving opportunity to the prosecution and the victim to substantiate the allegations levelled by it/ her against the accused for committing offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B and 364-A I. P. C. with the allegations that the chastity of a girl was ravished. The unmindful impugned order passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.) Etawah has done great injustice to the prosecution and the victim. I am constraint to observe that Judicial Officer are expected to act with restraint within the periphery of law and not to transgress the same because of their vanity and obsessions.