KANSHI RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , learned counsel for the respondents Mr. S.S. Rathor is sanguine that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is patently wrong and that revision petition against the preliminary order under section 145(1) read with section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, was entertainable as these are matters of moment, adequately discerned and categorised in Amar Nath v. The State of Haryana, [AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2185]. In view of this fair stance of the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is put back on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to decide the revision petition on merits. Under my orders dated 16.7.1982, I had ordered activation of any interim order passed during the pendency of that revision petition and now those interim orders are formally enlivened. The petition is allowed on these terms, The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 6th September, 1982. Petition allowed.