PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.07.2006 which (order), in turn, partly set aside the order dated 13.06.2005 directing discharge of the accused for offences under Sections 406/408 IPC. THE other part of the order discharging the accused under Sections 408/420 IPC was upheld. THE petitioner/accused are in revision against the reversal order by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is invalid on the very face of it in view of the fact that it directs the Trial Magistrate to frame charge-sheet against the accused. The plea raised thereby is that all that revisional Court could have ordered was to remit the matter to the Trial Magistrate for purposes of framing of charge. The plea raised is bereft of merit. As would be evident from a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.07.2006, all that the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Muktsar had done was to set aside the impugned order and to direct the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. The impugned order is a self contained and detailed affair. In the course thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed the allegations on the basis whereof the complaint had been filed, the preliminary evidence adduced in respect thereof and also the nature of testimony adduced on the file. The discussion with regard to applicability or otherwise or the relevant offences is fairly detailed. There is no legal infirmity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Muktsar. The revision petition shall stand dismissed.