BABA DIN Vs. UMA SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist states that he has no instructions. None appears for the revisionist to argue this revision. Heard learned A.G.A. for State and perused material on record.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be stated that the learned Magistrate in the operative portion of his judgment wrongly stated Section 307, I.P.C. instead of Section 326, I.P.C. It appears from record that charge-sheet was submitted under Section 307, I.P.C. along with other sections. Case was committed to the Court of Session but the Sessions Judge sent the case back holding that no offence under Section 307, I.P.C. was made out. Trial court, therefore, framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 326, I.P.C. and the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were tried for the said charges and shall be deemed to have been acquitted for the said offences.