AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Krishanji Khare, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AG.A and Sri Haridwar Singh counsel for the Union of India.
Originally an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was moved for quashing the chargesheet dated 17697 but later on the application was converted into Criminal Revision.
It appears that one Jawahar Yadav was arrested alongwith 1/2 Kg. Heroin and 1 Kg. 200 gm. R.D.X. A letter was also recovered from his possession. Further it appears that during investigation the name of revisionists as coaccused in the case was disclosed. The Investigating Officer on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the revisionist.
It is contended that after filing of the chargesheet the trial Court issued nonbailable warrant of arrest against the revisionists. They however moved an application dated 30697 praying for recall of the warrants and also stating that there was no evidence against them and, therefore, they may be discharged. The learned trial judge rejected the prayer for recalling the warrants on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Section 205 (2) the trial Court can direct personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the trial proceedings. The second prayer was also rejected on the ground that this question shall be considered at the time of the hearing of the case. It is this order of the trial Court dated 8 797 which is challenged in this revision.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that there is absolutely no evidence against the revisionists on the basis of which charge could be framed against them and that the alleged statement of coaccused Jawahar Yadav coming at the time of his arrest exonerating himself and involving the revisionists was not admissible in evidence. The trial Court was insisting personal appearance of the revisionists without considering the aforesaid contentions of the revisionists. By order dated 1897 time was granted to the A.G.A for filing counteraffidavit. No counteraffidavit has yet been filed. However, the revision can be disposed of on merits at this stage.
Once the accused moved to the Court that there is absolutely no evidence against them on the basis of which the accused can be prosecuted or charged with commission of the offence, the Court is required to dispose of such application on merit. Such prayer cannot be rejected on the ground that it could be seen at the time of hearing of the case. If the contention of the accused is found to be correct, direction to hear them only after they surrender before the Court amounts to unnecessary harassment of the accused. The revisionists had already appeared through counsel and had specifically stated in their objections that there is absolutely no evidence against them on the basis of which charge can be framed. The Court should have disposed of this objection of the revisionists on merit.
In this view of the matter the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 8797 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the objection of the revisionists dated 21697 without insisting upon personal attendance of the revisionists before disposal of that application. Order of warrants directing the arrest of the revisionists, if any, passed earlier by the trial Court shall also remain stayed till objections are disposed of.
A certified copy of this order will be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by 1997.
Revision allowed.