Ashok Srivastava - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 1, Baghpat in ST. No. 201 of 2003 (State v Ramveer and others), Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that a N.C.R. No. 3 of 2003 under Section 323/5061.P.C. was written at PS. Chandinagar, District Baghpat. THE complainant of the said case is one Anil Kumar. According to the report, on 26.1.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. in village Laliyana, PS. Chandinagar, District Baghpat, an altercation had taken place between the complainant-revisionist and opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. THEreafter all the accused persons named in the N.C.R. assaulted the revisionist causing him injuries. THE injured was rushed to the hospital where he was medically examined and the Medical Officer, who examined his injuries, found following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.1 cm x bone deep on left side head obliquely placed 5 cm above medial end of the eyebrow. Fresh bleeding present. (ii) Bruise 10 cm x 3 cm on right side back of chest 2 cm above upper border of right scapula. Red in colour. (iii) Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm front of left shoulder. Red in colour. (iv) Bruise 5 cm x 1.5 cm on left side lower back 2 cm above iliac crest. Red in colour. (v) Pain over abdomen. THE Medical Officer kept injury No. 1 under observation. Rest of the injuries were simple in his opinion. According to him injuries were fresh in duration. Injury No. 1 was referred for x-ray. THE injured was X-rayed on 27.1.2003 and according to the Radiologist, there was a fracture of orbital wall of left side of scull. THEreafter a supplementary medical report was prepared on 29.1.2003 and injury No. 1 was found to be grievous in nature. After the investigation of the case, the I.O. prepared a charge-sheet under Sections 323/324/325/506 I.P.C. When the matter was examined by the Supervisory Authority i.e. the Circle Officer of the circle concerned, it was found that the matter was one where an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was also disclosed. The CO. of the police directed the I.O. of the case to record the statement of the Medical Officer concerned whereupon the I.O. examined the Medical Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter Section 308 I.P.C. was added to the charge-sheet and the same was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and after furnishing the copies of the police papers to the accused persons, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused-private opposite parties appeared before the Court of Sessions. In this case, copy of order-sheet has been filed which isAnnexure-4 to the affidavit filed alongwith memo of revision. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.7.2003, clearly indicates that on that date all the private opposite parties had appeared in his Court and after hearing both the parties, charges under Sections 308/34/506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. Thereafter the witnesses were summoned. On 22.1.2004 an application was moved before the learned Sessions Jude with a prayer that in the charges framed against the accused persons on 18.7.2003, date and time of the incident has been wrongly mentioned and it was requested that they may be corrected. The learned Sessions Judge on the same day corrected it. Thereafter on the same day, he transferred the case to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge.
(3.) THE records show that the private opposite parties moved Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2004 before this Court on 18.3.2004 and on the next date i.e. on 19.3.2004 the following order was passed. JUDGEMENT_535_ADJ1_2011Image1.jpg The fact shows that this order was obtained by the private opposite parties by keeping the Court in dark and not producing before it the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.7.2003 in which it was clearly mentioned that charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 308/34/506 I.P.C. after hearing them and the prosecution in detail. It is worth mentioning here that Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2004 was presented before this Court on 18.3.2004 and the order was passed on 19.3.2004 i.e. on the next day which indicates that when this order was passed, the revisionist was not there to bring to the knowledge of the Court certain relevant facts. Any way I have to take that order as it stands today.;