ANJU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and Sri S. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THIS application has been filed against the order dated 22-1-2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in criminal case No. 10270 of 2006 whereby the learned C. J. M. has framed the charge.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. , and from the perusal of the impugned order dated 22- 1-2007, which shows that the learned trial Court has mentioned that the charge has been read over and explained to the accused, who had denied the same and claimed for trial. But it has not been signed by the Presiding Officer nor the signature of the applicant has been obtained. It is a manifest error which cannot be said to be a clerical mistake, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. The learned revisional Court has also not committed a manifest error in dismissing the revision on 1-5-2007 which is also illegal, therefore, both the impugned orders are hereby set aside and it is directed that the learned C. J. M. shall frame a fresh charge in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant.