KUMAR UTTAMCHAND AILANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is facing Sessions trial IN Sessions Cases Nos. 233 of 1996 and 279 of 1996 before the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Judge. The applicant is facing charge under Section 302 of the IPC r/w. Section 120-B of the I.P.C. After the initial formalities were over and the applicant was brought before the Court as accused. the applicant filed application for discharge being application at Exhibit 109. It is required to be mentioned that this application at Exhibit 109 came to be filed after formal charge for Section 302 of IPC was framed. There is some discussion as to whether such application can be entertained or not. However, at the end the learned trial Judge has dismissed the said application at Exhibit 109 and has also ordered that the charge would be altered. By Order dated 17.6.2000 the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application for discharge filed by the applicant and that is how the applicant has filed this revision application.

(2.) Few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as under:

(3.) I have heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Chitnis in support of the application and Ms. Shinde on behalf of the State. In order to consider whether the impugned Order was properly passed or not, it would be in the first place necessary mention the allegations against the applicant and then evaluate the same and decide whether the applicant was entitled to have himself discharged from the said Sessions Case.