SATYANARAYAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 19.7.2005 passed , by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror Camp Bansur whereby the revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 2 against the order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Bansur convicting the accused for the offence under Sec. 323 Penal Code and giving them the benefit of Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after following the proper procedure prescribed under the law.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 13.1.1999, a typed report was submitted by one Kailash Chand at PS Bansur for the offence under Sec. 365 IPC. But after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sec. 342 and 323 IPC. The complainant in this case had received 20 injuries. The particulars of offence under Sec. 323 IPC were read over to the accused who denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, one formal witness Ratiram PW-1 of site plan was examined. Thereafter the accused confessed his guilt on the basis of which he was found guilty for the offence under Sec. 323 Penal Code only and was convicted and released after admonition under Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The complainant filed a revision petition being No. 59/2004 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror camp Bansur which was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.7.2005 and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after following the prescribed procedure for conduct of the trial of such cases. The accused petitioners have, therefore, filed this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the.parties as well as learned PP for the State. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the relevant documents placed before me.