KALU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This criminal revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C has been directed against the order dated 28-10-98 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T No. 663 of 98, by which he rejected the request of the applicants for their discharge and framed charges for the offences under Sec tions 147,148,149,302,307, I. Pc

(2.) THE order for dismissal of the revision was passed today, but before the order could be signed, the learned counsel for the revisionists appeared and argued the matter. I have, therefore, heard him and have also heard the A. G. A. and perused the impugned order.

(3.) IN this case, three persons were murdered and there are several injured persons. The applicants, no doubt, were not nominated in the first information report, but in the first information report, it is mentioned that two accused were Sola and Bahnot of Suresh accused. IN the statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. all the injured witnesses have also nominated the applicants and referred them as Sala and Bahnot of Suresh. It may he mentioned that it is not denied that the ap plicants aresala antibahnot of Suresh.