KRISHNA KANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 1. 12. 04 and 15. 9. 08 passed by the courts below. Vide order dated 1. 12. 04 an application for discharge moved by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court and when this order was challenged in revision, that was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 15. 9. 08. Heard Mr. Y. S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Saxena that whatever was done i. e. the scoring out the figure of Rs. 20,000/- and making it Rs. 19,000/- was done in the knowledge of respondent no. 2 and, therefore, a good case for discharge was made out. He also argued that if the assertions of the complaint would have been true, there would not have been any delay in filing the complaint. I do feel that the arguments of Mr. Saxena cannot be given any weight in view of the provisions of Section 245 (1), Cr. P. C. It says that in a complaint case order of discharge shall be made only when the unrebutted evidence tendered under Section 244, Cr. P. C. do not make out a case for proceeding further and that is not available in the present case. What transpires from the evidence tendered under Section 244, Cr. P. C. is that this evidence, if taken as true on its face value, would prima facie make out a case against the petitioner. Therefore, the courts below were perfectly justified in not accepting the request of the petitioner for discharge. The petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the trial court shall sympathetically consider the request of the petitioner for exemption on further dates in the case. .