C.A.Rahim - (1.) LEARNED A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party. On consent of both the parties the matter is taken up for hearing. Heard both sides.
(2.) IT has been submitted that while framing charges against the revisionist, certain matter has not been taken into consideration. He has drawn my attention to Annexure-3. dying declaration, and Annexure-2, Injury report of the revisionist. IT has been submitted by Sri A. A. Khan, appearing on behalf of the revisionist that the dying declaration is enough to show that the revisionist had nothing to do in the matter and the charge that has been framed against the revisionist should not have been framed if these materials could have been considered by the learned trial court. It appears from the order-sheet that case diary was called for but that has not been sent. Besides the first information report, there are statements presumably recorded under Section 161. Cr. P.C. and the post-mortem examination report. Not only the statement regarded as dying declaration but also other circumstances, i.e., certificate issued by the doctor whether the deceased was in the state of making statement or not ought to be looked Into. As a revisional court, this Court is not inclined to go and find out if all the materials have been taken into consideration by the trial court to see if prima facie case is made out or not. Needless to say that the charge has been framed under Section 306/498A/304-B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Prior to this, the matter was Investigated and charge-sheet submitted by the police. It appears from the impugned order that all the matters were not considered at the time of framing of the charge. These are required to be considered. The revisionist, if desires, may file an application before the learned trial court indicating all the points that have been relied upon by him in the revision application to apprise the trial court about his version. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the said application or after receiving the copy of this order shall look into the materials in the light of the observations made above and reframe the charge and pass order according to law. There is no impediment to amend or alter the charge and while amending, if he finds that there is no case against the revisionist, he can pass such order with reasons.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, allowed. THE impugned order dated 8.7.1996 passed by the learned Vlth Additional Sessions Judge. Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1995 is set aside. THE case is remanded back to the learned trial court for reconsideration of the charge in the light of the above observations. He will proceed after refraining the charge according to law.;