RAJVIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dated 03.08.2013, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which charges under Sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC have been framed against the petitioner and others, he has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that firstly the impugned order is non-speaking. Secondly, the documents submitted by the petitioner, are not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no evidence on the record that the petitioner ever worked with Daljit Singh, co-accused, or the petitioner was partner with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is a case of no evidence, therefore, revision petition should be accepted and the impugned order regarding framing of charges against the petitioner should be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the lower Court record, which has already been summoned in this case.