RAJESH KUNTAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against framing of charges by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 13-10- 1999. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the revisionist's name were neither mentioned in the first information report nor their names were disclosed in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. of the witnesses. It is further contended that the charges were also framed earlier against the revisionists and order was set aside, and learned lower Court was ordered to pass appropriate order complying Section 227 Cr. P. C. . Section 227 provides that if upon considering the record and documents submitted by the prosecution and after hearing the submission of the accused and prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceed ing against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasoning and Section 228 shows that upon such con sideration and hearing, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence exclusively triable by the Court he shall frame charge in writing. Words used in Sections 226, 227 and 228 Cr. P. C. clearly show that prosecutor open his case and Judge shall consider the record of the case and documents submitted. In this case the order dated 13-10-1999 shows that the learned A. D. G. C. opened the prosecution case and pointed out the evidence to which prosecution proposed to rely and Judge also considered the material on record and heard both the parties and was of the opinion that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for framing charges. There fore, learned Court below fully complied with the provisions of the above noted Sections of Cr. P. C. and there is no il legality. As far as second contention of revisionists, that the name of the revisionists are not disclosed, is con cerned, the contention is not correct be cause in subsequent statement of witnesses Bali Ram Verma, Mahipal and KRISHNA Pal had disclosed the names of the revisionists for taking part in this crime. There is thus no illegality in the order and procedure and there is no force in the revision. The revision is hereby rejected. Revision rejected. .