HUKUM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. In the proceedings of the complaint case No. 143 or 1985 under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I. P. C. The ac cused- applicants moved an application 12/kha for their discharge under Section 245, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant had already been transferred from the place of occurrence on 8-10-1984 hence he could not be expected to be present on 18-1-1985. On the date of hearing i. e. 28-10-1985 the complainant was found absent while the applicants pressed their application for discharge. The learned Magistrate after considering the material on record discharged the accused- ap plicants under Section 245, Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision No. 230 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai. The learned Sessions Judge found that the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with law. He accordingly allowed the revision vide order, dated 17-8-1988 setting aside the order of discharge dated 28-10-1985 passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) THE list has been revised. No body is present on behalf of the complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the ap plicants and the learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the relevant papers.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai dated 17-8-1988 in criminal revision No. 230 of 1985 is set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is maintained. Revision allowed. .