KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) BY way of this revision, the revisionist Arun Kumar Sharma alias Karu (the accused) has assailed the revisional court's order dated 7.6.2010 rendered in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2009, Prem Narain. Sharma v. State of U. P. and another, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VIII, Etawah quashed the discharge order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 381 of 2008, State v. Arun Kumar Sharma alias Karu. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the revisionist on the ground that no case for framing charges against him was made out. The finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was based on appreciation/evaluation of the evidence and the materials collected during the investigation. The learned revisional court on the other hand took a contrary view and found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ignored relevant evidence and committed error of law in discharging the revisionist.
(3.) THE order of the learned revisional court seems to be perfectly correct and legal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate travelled beyond his jurisdiction in making appreciation of evidence at the stage of discharge. He should have taken all the evidence and materials at their face value. If the materials and evidence collected in support of the charge-sheet had made out a prima facie case against the revisionist, the discharge of the revisionist was not proper on the ground that the materials/evidence were not acceptable.;