S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi in S.T. No. 338 of 2001, State Vs. Vinod Pandey, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District-Varanasi, whereby learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against the revisionist and a date for framing charge was fixed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that charge under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the revisionist. It was contended that there is no evidence on record to show that revisionist Vinod Pandey fired at the police party or administrative officers. A perused of the FIR reveals that on 21.5.2001 in village Karmi, boundary wall of airport was being constructed. A crowd of 500-600 people assembled, S.D.M. was surrounded. The crowd was angry and did not permit the construction of the boundary wall, unless full compensation was paid. The miscreants started beating officers and also pelting stones. Few peoples were taken into custody and sent to the police station. In the meantime, revisionist Vinod Pandey instigated the crowd to snatch the arms of the police officers. Stones were pelted from three sides. Police force and the S.D.M. were surrounded. The miscreants also started firing. Police also fired in the air. Few persons were injured.
(3.) FROM the narration of the FIR and statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. , it is apparent that an unlawful assembly was present on the spot consisting of 500-600 persons, who were pelting stones at the State machinery. Fire was also resorted to by persons in the crowd. The revisionist was the leader of the unlawful assembly and was instigating the crowd to attack the police force and administrative officers. In these circumstances, framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against the revisionist cannot be said to be unjustified. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.;