GEETA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr,P.C., is directed against the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by Additional Sessiong Judge No. 2, Bayana in criminal revision No. 21/2007 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Weir in criminal case No. 636/1999 has been dismissed and the order of learned Magistrate passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been upheld.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The occurrence is of 26.11.1999 and the first information report appears to have been lodged on the same day. After necessary investigation a challan was filed against accused Rama Kant and Shiv Kant under Sections 323, 341 and 447 I.P.C. The order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been passed on the basis of the statements of Manohar Singh PW-1 and Ramswaroop PW-2. The statements of the above two witnesses Manohar Singh PW-1 and Ramswaroop PW-2 were recorded on 30.1.2002 and when the case was being adjourned for final arguments then an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by prosecution on 8.9.2006. If the prosecution really had a grievance about the petitioners being not made accused, it could have moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. immediately after recording of the evidence of Manohar Singh PW-1 and Ramswaroop PW-2. Instead the prosecution chose to wait for more than four years. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution as to why application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not filed earlier. Moreover, a perusal of the statements of Manohar Singh PW-1 and Ramswaroop PW-2 shows that they have stated about the presence of the petitioners without any definite role being ascribed to them in their statements recorded by the trial Court on 30.1.2002. Learned revisional Court has not dealt with this aspect of the matter. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned revisional Court dated 28.6.2008 and that of learned Magistrate dated 14.2.2007 cannot be maintained.