RAMESHCHANDRA ONKARLALJI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under S. 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure ("co4e" hereafter ). It arises out of order contained in judgment dated 25-4-2007 passed by learned Third additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in sessions Trial No. 56/2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide para 70 of the Judgment directed for arraignment of the applicant as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code.

(2.) MULTUM in parvo, one Smt. Roopkunwarbai was assaulted by Sunil, naharsingh, Vinod and Kamal and the matter was reported to the police. In the report allegation of exhortation was levied against the petitioner to the effect that he was present on the scene of occurrence and exhorted the accused persons stated above to assault the said lady. On the basis of the said report police had registered an offence at Crime No. 320/2005 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 506 (11) of the Penal Code against the above named accused as well as the petitioner. When the investigation took place, the petitioner already showed to the Investigation officer that he was not present on the spot; he being an Advocate; at the relevant time, he was working in Court due to inimical terms prevailing between the complainant party and him and his family, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. It was further shown by him that the injured lady smt. Roopkunwarbai and her family members were on constant inimical terms with the petitioner and his family since she had lost Municipal Elections, once against the wife and other time against the son of the petitioner. It was also shown that upon the complaints being made by the wife and son of the petitioner, the husband of the injured lady was removed from the service of municipality. As also it was shown that the petitioner was conducting some cases against the injured lady. Seemingly after an oleborate investigation, the police found that the petitioner was not present on the scene of occurrence; he was unnecessarily involved in the case, therefore, the police did not choose to file charge-sheet against him and filed the charge-sheet against rest of the accused.

(3.) AFTER completion of the trial, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court for implicating the petitioner in the case. The learned trial Court finally decided the case by pronouncing its judgment en 25-4-2007 in which while convicting the accused who were facing trial, as per para 70 of the judgment further ordered to start prosecution under Section 319 of the Code against the petitioner. Thereafter the learned trial Court started proceedings against the petitioner and vide order dated 27-4-2007 issued a non-bailable warrant against him. Feeling aggrieved of the above, the petitioner has come up to this Court in this revision.