RAM DHARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Dhari-petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment dated February 1, 1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby after setting aside the judgment dated August 7, 1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra convicting the petitioner, the case has been remanded back to the trial Court for putting the evidence of the prosecution to the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) CERTAIN facts be noticed. Sat Pal, Sona Ram, Nikku Ram and Ram Dhari (the present petitioner) were jointly tried under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance to F.I.R. No. 234 dated August 25, 1992, registered at Police Station Thanesar. After the investigation a challan was presented by the police. Vide order dated October 9, 1987, Nikku Ram was discharged by the learned trial Magistrate. Proceedings were continued against the remaining three persons as aforesaid. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the trial, Sat Pal and Sona Ram were acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment dated August 7, 1992, however, the petitioner Ram Dhari was convicted under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner felt aggrieved. He took the matter in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. During the course of appeal, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that entire prosecution evidence has not been put to the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner Ram Dhari. It was found as a fact by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the material evidence led by the prosecution had not been put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, rather than granting the benefit of the aforesaid lapse committed by the prosecution to the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated February 1, 1995 chose to set aside the judgment dated August 7, 1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra and remanded the case back to the trial Magistrate with a direction that the entire evidence be now put to the accused petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) I have heard Shri A.S. Virk, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Rakesh Deswal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondents and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance.