KANHAIYA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 2.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow in S.T. No. 317 of 1995 State v. Amit Kumar Saxena and Ors. holding that a prima facie case against the revisionist has been made out for framing of charge under Sections 147, 302/149, I.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that two first information reports were lodged - -one was registered as Case Crime No. 61 of 1994 State v. Kanhaiya Chauhan and after conclusion of the investigation, charge -sheet has been filed against the revisionist -Kanhaiya Chauhan along with other persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324, I.P.C. This first information report was lodged by Amit Kumar Saxena. The other F.l.R. was lodged by Prabhakar Agnihotri in respect of the same incident against unknown persons. Consequently, the investigation was concluded and a charge -sheet was filed against Amit Kumar Saxena and others being Cross Case Crime No. 61A of 1994 under Sections 147, 302, I.P.C. as one Punit Agnihotri alias Pappu son of the informant of the first information report was killed in the same incident. In the charge -sheet filed against Amit Kumar Saxena, the revisionist -Kanhaiya Chauhan has been shown as witness. Thus, the revisionist is an accused in Case Crime No. 61 of 1994 and a witness in Case Crime No. 61A of 1994. Both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions and are pending In the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow. The charge -sheet filed in Case Crime No. 61 of 1994 gave rise to S.T. No. 651 of 1995 and charge -sheet filed in Case Crime No. 61A of 1994 gave rise to the S.T. No. 317 of 1995.

(3.) WHEN this revision was filed this Court, mentioning the facts that the revisionist Kanhaiya Chauhan was already an accused in the cross case registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Amit Kumar Saxena who is an accused in the present case in which Kanhaiya Chauhan -revisionist is a witness and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not considered this fact, directed the learned Sessions Judge to look into the matter and submit his report. The learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, has sent his report on 23rd September. 1999 in which, it has been stated that the explanation of the Presiding Officer was obtained who has informed that it appears that the file of S.T. No. 317 of 1995 was separately dealt with without reference to S.T. No. 651 of 1999 and since the Presiding Officer has passed a judicial order, this can only be set aside in revision and it appears that this situation has arisen because both the files were dealt with separately and the case diary was not carefully gone through.