RAMDAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PARDESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Nagina Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.02.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1996 (Chhatradhari Vs. Ram Das and others), whereby the order dated 09.07.1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in case No. 320 of 1996 (State Vs. Ram Das and others) was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to pass fresh orders in the light of observations made therein.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that a non-cognizable report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2, Chhatradhari Dhobi under Sections 504 and 427 Penal Code at Police Station Shyamdevarwa, District Maharajganj on 06.04.1991 against the revisionists; that charge sheet dated 15.05.1991 in aforesaid sections was submitted against the revisionists and they were summoned by the learned Magistrate and statements of the accused/ revisionists under Sec. 251 Crimial P.C., 1973 were recorded on 14.06.1994 for the offence under Sections 504 and 427 IPC; that from order dated 09.07.1996 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj it appears that a supplementary charge sheet dated 29.01.1992, but singed by the Investigating Officer on 29.01.1991, for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was submitted by the police on 29.01.1992; that in pursuance of the said supplementary charge sheet, the Assistant Prosecuting Officer moved an application 48Kha on 11.04.1996 before the learned Magistrate stating therein that the revisionists have not obtained bail in Sec. 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, they should be taken into judicial custody; that against this application of the Assistant Prosecuting Officer, the revisionists have filed objections and the learned Magistrate after considering the averments made in the application as well as objections, rejected the application vide order dated 09.07.1996 finding no offence under Sec. 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to be made out against the revisionists; that being aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.1996, the opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision being criminal revision No. 56 of 1996, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj by impugned order dated 07.02.1998; that feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.02.1998, the present revisionists have preferred this revision.