Muzammil Jamal and Others vs State of U.P.

B.K. Sharma, J.—List has been revised. None appears for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. is present in person. Record has been gone into with the help of the learned A.G.A.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.3.1985 available on the order sheet of the S.T. No. 23 of 1985. State v. Nawab Dulha and Ors., Under Sections 307, 326, 323, I.P.C, P.S. Kaimganj, district Farrukhabad pending at that time before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. This order did not disclose that the Sessions Judge had applied his mind to the matter before him as required Under Sections 227 and 228, Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 227 and 228. Code of Criminal Procedure, taken together indicate that the Sessions Judge shall consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, if he considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. In case he is of the opinion that there is ground for presumption that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively tradable by the Court of Session, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused and his plea shall be recorded. At this stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to enter into a meticulous examination of the statement of evidence in the case diary and other material placed before it nor is it required to give detailed reasons.

A scrutiny of the record of the trial court which is before use shows that there was application of mind and that there was nothing wrong with the framing of charge by him u/s 307/34, I.P.C. against the accused-revisionist. He has stated in his order dated 18.3.1985 that the accused are present with their counsel Sri J.N. Sinha, that Sri K.N. Tewari, represented the State, that he has heard on the point of charge, that the learned Counsel for the accused contended that the injury did not call for a charge u/s 307, I.P.C, against the accused as all of them are simple, that the learned D.G.C. has pointed out that there has been use of fire-arm a sharp edged weapon and blunt weapon and so the nature of injuries has become immaterial and that he (the Sessions Judge) was of the view that there was a prima facie case for charging the accused u/s 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. This order accompanied the charge framed by him u/s 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

There is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge framing charge against the accused-revisionist. Consequently, the revision has no force and is dismissed.

There is no stay order in this case. The record of the trial court shall be returned to the Court below safely by the High Court office by special messenger in a sealed cover along with a copy of this judgment. The Sessions Judge concerned shall expedite the hearing of the case which unfortunately remained pending from the year 1985 until now because of the record being with the High Court.