RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE OF UTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 12/1/1986 by Shri S.B. Verma, the then lind Additional Sessions Judge, Jumper who was disposing of the Criminal revision No. 231 of 1984. This revision, was preferred before the learned Judge, by China Main and three others against the judgment and order passed on 14/11/1984 by Mr. S.N. Pandey, the then Sub-Divisional Officer Shagging in Criminal case No. 51/16 purporting to be under section 145 Cr. P.C.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge directed the remand of the case by allowing the revision and he also issued a direction to the learned Magistrate to mate a fresh decision of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the discussions made in his judgment.

(3.) The only point that was agitated before this Court was that the learned Sessions Judge, was not justified in holding that the affidavit upon which reliance was placed by the learned Magistrate, was no evidence and since it has been considered, it will have to be presumed that the judgment has been effected atleast to some extent on account of this affidavit. The learned counsel who argued this revision before me drew my attention to the provisions of section 3 of the Evidence Act where evidence has been defined, all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses shall be included in the term evidence and will be deemed to be oral evidence.