SHIV RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of this case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that no case for the offence under Sec. 436 is made out and submits that for rest of the offences, he does not want to argue. Learned counsel submits that only "Baad" has been burnt and accused petitioners had no intention or no knowledge that thereby they would burnt the building. He has also drawn my attention towards the site memo and produced some photographs of place of the occurrence and argues that only "Baadand Parchi" has been burnt, thus it cannot be said that there was any intention or knowledge to the accused petitioners and submits that no offence under Sec. 436 is made out against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that no interference should be called for in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali Camp Jaitaran.