Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the charges dated 19.7:2010 framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-Ill, Court No. 3, Bareilly against the revisionist under Sections 324/34, 504 and 506 IPC. It appears that the Police submitted a final report in Case Crime No. 392 of 2002, under the aforesaid sections, PS. Bhamaura, District Bareilly against which a protest petition was filed, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Bareilly passed the order dated 6.5.2004 rejecting the final report and taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issuing process to the revisionist. It appears that on 19.7.2010, the learned Magistrate framed the aforesaid charges against the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there is no evidence against the revisionist for framing the charges. It is a matter for the trial Court to see whether or not there is any evidence against the revisionist. It appears that the cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1 )(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), therefore, the trial is to be held as if the case has been instituted on a Police report.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to make compliance of Section 207 of the Code before framing the charges. Copies of the statements of the witnesses and documents, being relied in support of the charges, have not been furnished to the revisionist, therefore, framing of the charges was not proper. The learned counsel for the revisionist had put up a question in the office of the Magistrate to answer whether or not copies were furnished to the revisionist. The answer was that, no copy was furnished. A photo stat copy of the answer so furnished has been annexed as annexure No. 3 to the supplementary affidavit. Copies of the order sheets have also been filed and there is no mention in any of the order recorded on the order sheet, that the copies of the statements of the witnesses and documents were furnished to the revisionist before framing of the charges. Section 238 of the Code provides that when in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207.;