- (1.) R. C. Deepak, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the informant in case crime No. 434/02. No fair and proper investigation was carried and the final report dated 23-4-2003 was submitted. No notice was served upon the petitioner, as is evidently clear from the order dated 6-2- 2004. THE revisional Court also dismissed the revision. THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a bare reading of the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , the prosecution case is prima facie made and there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to submit the final report and even after the submission of the final report it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to have examined the evidence/record produced by the Investigating Officer and to have rejected the final report, but the learned Magistrate committed illegality in not doing so. THE revisional Court also did not apply judicial mind and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that the petitioner be provided an opportunity of hearing, which is his absolute right. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 6-2-2004 passed by the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court's order dated 17-3-2005 are hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the final report in accordance with law. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of. .;