TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 21. 7. 2003 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk has declined to take cognizance u/sec. 319 Cr. P. C. against co-accused persons namely; Shakti, Banno, Amar Chand, Deepak, Kalia, Rajveer, Bhakti, Balbeer, Vinod, Neeraj and Roop Narayan in Sessions Case No. 14/02 pending trial before that court against 25 persons including the petitioners for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307 and 149 I. P. C.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the order impugned.

(3.) IN the instant case, as indicated earlier the trial is at penultimate stage of final arguments after recording of as many as 46 witnesses. The learned trial court has in the impugned order referred to the nature of evidence that has come on record and appears to have no reasonable satisfaction that the accused persons sought to be arrayed in the case may be convicted of the alleged offence. Thus, looking to the stage of the case and the nature of evidence against the accused persons who are sought to be arraigned in the case along with already arranged accused and all other facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for taking cognizance is made out. So there is no cogent and valid reason to interfere with the impugned order declining to take cognizance.