- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 6-11-1996 whereby the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah discharged the accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the com plainant was absent. However, there was documentary evidence to show prima facie case against the accused for framing of charge. It is further contended that the ac cused had been appointed on the basis of a forged certificate. Ii is further contended that there was no delay because of the com plainant rather there was delay in the case because the case remained pending for about eleven years before the High Court. In view of the averments in the revision it ap pears that the Court must give some oppor tunity to the complainant to produce his evidence. The learned Counsel for the ap plicant contended that it was a very old case and the High Court ordered for early disposal and it has been directed by the High Court to the Court below that the old cases maybe disposed of as early as possible. How ever, this fact is not denied that this case is pending for the last eleven years in the High Court and no undue delay was caused by the complainant. It is in the interest of justice that one more opportunity may be allowed to the revisionist to produce evidence if any against the accused. In the result the revision is allowed. The order dated 6-11-1998 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to produce the evidence in respect of his case prior to the framing of charge. Revision allowed. .;