- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. Heard learned Coun sel and the learned A. G. A. The matter is taken up for final hearing on consent of both the parties.
(2.) IT has been contended that the prosecution case was that Gaurav Pratap Singh was injured by a fire- arm but charge has been framed for attempt to murder to Veer Mani Singh. IT appears that no charge has been framed for the injuries caused to Gaurav Pratap Singh. So I find that the matter should be re- considered by the learned trial Judge. Upon a consideration of the facts and also submissions of both the sides, I find that the case should be remanded back to the trial court for re-consideration and for re-framing of the charge, if necessary, for proper adjudication of the case. The Revision is,therefore,allowed. The impugned order dated 18-3-1997 passed by the VIHth Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah,in crime case No. 160 of 1991 and S. T. No. 50 of 1995 be set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Judge for re-con sideration of the charge in the light of the above observations. He will proceed after re-framing the charge in accordance with law. Revision allowed .;