(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of father of the deceased.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 24.4.2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his acquittal in terms of Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is of the firm view that the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law inasmuch as the court below while rejecting such prayer has acted with material irregularity by overlooking the mandatory provisions. He has also submitted that as a result of such illegal order the entire trial has been vitiated from the stage on which the said impugned order dated 24.4.2007 had been passed. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner was not named in the first information report and though the police had submitted a charge-sheet against him and other accused persons, the prosecution in course of sessions trial, having examined 7 witnesses could not bring any material as against the petitioner and as such the application filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2007 for hearing argument under Section 232 ought not to have been mechanically rejected.
(3.) Counsel for the State as also the father of the deceased in their separate submissions have pointed out that not only the application filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2007 was misconceived in law but even the present application has been filed only with a view to delay the trial of the sessions case of the year 1997 ( Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1997) in which arguments had already been almost completed on 31.5.2007 when this case was filed. They have also explained that only because of an interim order passed on 13.9.2007 remaining part of the proceeding of the pending sessions trial against the petitioner and others has not been completed inasmuch as this Court had stayed the further proceeding of the Sessions case in question.