HALIMA BIBEE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This revision application is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission after hearing argument from the parties.

(2.) INFORMANT is the petitioner. Prosecution i. e., the State of Orissa is the opposite party No. 1. The accused persons and the proposed accused persons are the opposite party members 2 to 12.

(3.) IN the midst of the trial, at the instance of the petitioner, prosecution filed an application purporting to be one under section 319, Cr. P. C. for addition of the persons as accused. On 22 -1 -2000 learned J.M.F.C. Banpur rejected that application on the ground that Assistant Public Prosecutor did not remain present to move that application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges correctness of that order on the ground that such an application should not have been dismissed for default and learned Magistrate should have considered the same on the basis of evidence on record. Learned Standing Counsel endorses his support to that argument. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party members, on the other hand, contends that when that application was not moved the trial court had no option other than to reject that application. In other words, he defends the impugned order.