Kadil @ Kadir vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 19.07.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.78 of 2021, State Vs. Kadil, by the court of Special Judge, POCSO, District Haridwar. By it, an application filed by the revisionist for discharge has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

It appears that the revisionist is facing a criminal trial. After most of the witnesses were examined, Application No.66B was filed by the revisionist seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Section 5(l)(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the ground that the victim is not a minor.

It was objected to on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that the victim is a minor.

After hearing the parties, the court observed that the charges have been framed; most of the witnesses have been examined; and at that stage, there is no question of any discharge. After conclusion of the trial, a finding of acquittal or guilt, as the case may be, is to be recorded. This order is impugned.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the prosecution evidence has been closed. He admits that now only a finding of guilt or acquittal may be recorded.

At the stage of examination of an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if an application for discharge is moved, such application may not be entertained. At the stage, after conclusion of trial, as stated, the finding of guilt or acquittal, as the case may be, is to be recorded.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly rejected the application presented by the revisionist. There is no merit in this revision. It deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The revision is dismissed in limine.