STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAMJI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the State of UP is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J) Agra, whereby he refused to set aside in revision the order of discharge passed in favour of the opposite parties by a learned 1st class Magistrate of that place.

(2.) IT appears that the police sent up 24 persons to stand their trial Under Sections 147, 323 and 379 IPC for mobbing the car of the High Commissioner of Nigeria and depriving his chauffeur of his wrist watch and cash. The learned Magistrate after going through the documents referred to in Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and the case diary held that, while there was sufficient evidence to proceed against seven of those persons, there was no evidence on the basis of which a charge could be framed against the opposite -parties and he therefore ordered their discharge. The State went up in revision against that order to the lower revisional court and when, it failed to get redress there, it preferred the present revision.

(3.) ON behalf of the State a two -fold contention was advanced in support of this revision. The first contention was that the identification of the opposite parties by the Nigerian; High Commissioner and his chauffeur as the culprits before the SO was not hit by the provisions of Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure. His second contention was that, even if it were hit, the learned Magistrate could is till not pass the order of discharge as, those witnesses would have proved the complicity of the opposite -parties by identifying them at the trial. After hearing the Learned Counsel I am satisfied the while the first contention is not sound, the second contention is well -founded; with the result that this revision must succeed. I shall, therefore, deal with those contentions ad seriatim.