GAFFUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Sharma, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 to 8 as well as the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision are that on 27-10-1991 an occurrence took-place in respect of which an F. I. R. was lodged by Rakmuddin against the present accused opposite parties 3 to 8 at Police Station Kotwali pehat, district Saharanpur on which basis a Chik report was prepared and case Crime No. 304 under Sections 147/148/149/302, I. P. C. was registered. In this F. I. R. the informant had stated that his brother and others came at the spot and saw the occurrence. THE present revisionist Gaffur is real brother of the said informant. THE deceased in the case was Mugluddin, who was the father of informant Rakmuddin and of Gaffur, the present revisionist. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the present accused opposite parties No. 3 to 8, in the Court of Magistrate concerned. THEreafter, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and after committal, the case became Sessions Trial No. 343 of 1996 under Sections 148, 302/149, I. P. C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the ac cused opposite parties 3 to 8 has not been able to support the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reject ing the said application on any legal ground. He has, of course pointed out that this revision has been preferred against only the final judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that no revision has been preferred against the order dated 5-3-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reject ing his application for recording his evidence. However, when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had finally decided the Sessions trial itself after rejecting the said application of the present-revisionist, no useful purpose could be served by preferring revision against that order. THE judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge gets vitiated in law because of this material irregularity committed by him during the trial and so his judgment of acquittal could be successfully assailed before the Court on the ground that he had sought to give material evidence available at the trial against the accused-persons but the same was illegally refused by the trial Judge.