- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned State Counsel.
(2.) APPLICANT Nankoo Singh has filed this revision against the judgment and order dated 20. 1. 1990 of Sri R. K. Malviya, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1989. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction. However, the learned Sessions Judge has remanded the case for fresh decision. According to the prosecution case on 25. 2. 1986 at about 4. 40 p. m. Junior Engineer Sri G. S. Chauhan and Inspector of Police Sri. Y. P. Sharma and some others made a surprise checking at the tube-well of the applicant whose electricity connec tion had been disconnected. They discovered the applicant using the electricity by directly connecting it with the electricity line. The learned Sessions Judge has remanded case as he found that fard baramdgi had not been proved or the material exhibits had been marked. Even electric wire which was used for connecting the tube-well with the line was not produced before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, thought that the prosecution should be permitted to fill up these shortcomings in the prosecution case. In my opinion the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in the case after several years. The incident took place in the year 1986, i. e. more than seven years from the (sic) now and even at the time when the learned Sessions Judge decided the appeal more than three years had passed and it was not a fit case for being remanded to the learned Magistrate.
(3.) IN the result, this revision is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 26. 9. 1987 passed against the applicant by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The applicant is acquitted. Revision allowed. .;