KAMAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has ben filed against the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by 8 ASJ, Indore in S.T.No.133/2015, whereby framed the charge against the applicant under Section 392 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 13.04.2013 complainant Mohammed Ashfaq has lodged a report against 4 unknown persons that on 13.04.2013 at 5.00 pm. he was returning to home carrying Rs.55,200 -00 cash in a bag. When he reached near Green Park Colony, Indore then 4 unknown persons came on two motor -cycles and they have snatched the bag and ran away. On this basis, Police Station Chandan Nagar has registered a Crime No.133/15 for the offence under Section 392 of IPC against 4 unknown person. On 23.11.2014 police apprehended co -accused Rashid Khan and on his disclosure statement, present applicant Kamal and other co -accused Ikram were arrested on 30.11.2014. Applicant Kamal was interrogated and at his instance from his possession 1,400 -00 cash was recovered. Test identification parade was conducted in Central Jail, Indore, however, he has not been identified by the complainant. One of the co -accused Vipin is absconded. After completing the investigation, final report has been filed against the present applicant and co -accused Rashid Khan and Ikram. The present applicant has filed an application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code and prayed that there is no material against him, hence he be discharged. However, learned ASJ by the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 has framed the charge against the applicant and co -accused Rashid. Being aggrieved, applicant Kamal has filed this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed the application before the learned ASJ that after lapse of one year and seven months from the incident currency notes of Rs.1,400 -00 have been recovered from possession of the applicant. The currency notes are unidentifiable articles. The applicant has not been identified during test identification parade and no incriminating article has been seized from possession of the applicant. Thus, he be discharged but the learned ASJ without considering the application and has not passed any reasoned order, framed the charge in a usual and cryptic manner. Thus, the learned ASJ has committed an error of law. The order passed by the learned ASJ be set -aside and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charge.