- (1.) S. K. Jain, J. Present Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court III, Court No. 8, Banda in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2005, Km. Gudiya and Anr. v. Rajua @ Raju and Anr. , whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order dated 19-10-2005 passed by learned I ACJM Banda in criminal case No. 3358/ix/03, State v. Rajua @ Raju, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I. P. C. and remanded the case for fresh trail after summoning the injured witness Angad and other prosecution witnesses.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri I. K. Chaturvedi and the learned A. G. A. None appeared for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had no locus standi to file criminal revision before the Sessions Judge against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were neither complainant in the case, nor they were the witnesses of the occurrence for which the revisionist has faced trial. The learned Counsel further contended that no revision lies against the order of acquittal before the Sessions Judge. The learned AGA submitted that the learned I ACJM, vide judgment and order dated 19-10-2004 passed in criminal case No. 3358/ix/2003 on the date of appearance of the accused i. e. 18-10-2004 after recalling the bailable warrant of the accused recorded the statement of accused and without giving any further opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence recorded the statement of PW 1 Daya Ram and the Counsel for the accused dispensed with the formal proof of the documents of the prosecution. PW 1 Daya Ram was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution story, thus he passed judgment and order dated 19-10-2004 in a most cryptic manner and the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality in remanding the case to the learned Magistrate for fresh trial after summoning the witnesses.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. It is revealed from the perusal of the record that the learned ACJM on the date of appearance of the accused recalled his warrant, thereafter recorded the statement of the accused and after the learned Counsel for the accused dispensed with the formal proof of the documents of the prosecution, recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and passed the judgment and order dated 19-10- 2004. Thus, the learned ACJM did not give opportunity to the prosecution to summon the remaining witnesses. From perusal of the F. I. R. of the case, it appears that one Angad was also injured in the occurrence. Chandra Shekhar had also witnessed the occurrence but no opportunity was given by the learned Magistrate to the prosecution to summon these two witnesses.;