Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) This application is directed against the order, dated 23-9-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order, dated 26-6-2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 refusing to entertain an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed.
(3.) It appears that a complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 being Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 against several accused persons including the petitioners. After cognizance was taken, process was issued against the other accused persons save and except petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which led the opposite party No. 2 to prefer revision application in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2006. Vide order dated 26-9-2006 the revision application was dismissed with liberty to the opposite party No. 2 to invoke the provision of Section 319, Cr. P.C. at the appropriate stage if ample option is available to the complainant. It appears that before the charge three witnesses have been examined and thereafter an application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. was preferred by the opposite party No. 2 which was dismissed on 26-9-2006 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat on the ground that specific allegations are lacking in the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Against the dismissal of the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. the opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 which was allowed in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and order dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat was set aside.;