MOHD. RAFIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the learned counsel appearing, the revision petition itself is finally heard.

(2.) By the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed the application of the A.RR filed under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. After allowing that application, the learned trial court directed that witnesses No. 1 and 5 be summoned for the date of hearing fixed on 28.2.2001. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact it was way back on 6.11.1997 that the learned trial court had already closed the summoning of the witness Anand Sirivaikar and thereafter this witness was not produced. Not only this, the order dated 6.11.1997 was unsuccessfully assailed in revision, which revision was also dismissed on 21.2.1998. As such it is contended that the impugned order is wholly bad.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that after passing of the order dated 6.11.1997, the charge against the accused was amended and therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad. The controvert this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order amending charge had been set aside in revision.