GOVINDA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has arisen out of an order in an appeal of the petitioners whereby the lower appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with the direction to decide the case for offences under Sec. 147 & 342, IPC, coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were also charged for offence under Sec. 342, IPC, but it (trial Court) had not given any finding as to whether offence of Sec. 342, Penal Code was proved or not. The lower appellate court further observed that offence of Sec. 147, Penal Code was not compoundable so it remanded the case for re-trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the order sheet of 6.10.1982, the trial Court, itself, nowhere stated that offence of Sec. 342, Penal Code was also made out prima facie or that there were material on record so as to frame charge against the petitioners for offences of Sec. 342, IPC. Taking the aid of the facts stated above, Shri Biri Singh vociforcely contended that the charge of Sec. 342, IPC, was wrongly and illegally framed even if against the petitioners. Shri Singh urges, this significant aspect of the case has not been considered by the lower appellate court by reading of the order sheet of 6.10.1982.

(3.) A look at the order sheet of 6.10.1982 would show that in that order the trial court, itself nowhere stated that offence of Sec. 342, Penal Code was also made out prima facie against the petitioners. So, in the absence of such a conclusion finding any sufficient material it can be said that the trial court did not think it proper to frame charge or that it found no case prima facie against the petitioners for offence of Sec. 342, IPC. Thus viewed, it can be said that the petitioners had impliedly be discharged for offence of Sec. 342, Penal Code and in view of these circumstances, the remand of the case by the lower appellate court appears to be bad in law resulting in miscarriage of justice & causing failure of justice warranting invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the petitioners who were found guilty of offence under Sec. 147, Penal Code by the trial court, were allowed the benefit of probation. So, Shri Biri Singh states that he would not like to assail the finding of guilty of offence of Sec. 147, Penal Code arrived at by the trial court against the petitioners, in case the benefit of probation granted to them by the trial Court is maintained. This prayer appears to be reasonable. The offence alleged is of Feb., 1980. After a lapse of time of more than a decade, the remand of a case in which the trial court has given benefit of probation, would again result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, in this view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no further inquiry or trial is needed against the petitioners.