Matloob vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Proposed Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 29.06.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No.112 of 2021, “State vs. Somin”, by which, while allowing the application, filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, direction has been given that the revisionist be tried along with the accused, named in the charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 363, 366 A, 323, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 16 read with Section 17 of the of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Proposed revisionist along with one Talib, Amzad and others were summoned by the impugned order. A Criminal Revision (No.397 of 2022) was filed by the said Talib and one Criminal Revision (No.408 of 2022) was filed Amzad and others. On 21.11.2022, the coordinate Bench allowed both the Criminal Revisions and impugned order dated 29.06.2022 was set aside qua the said revisionists.

Proposed Revision has been filed along with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 12 days’ in preferring the Revision.

The said Delay Condonation Application has not been opposed by the State.

The Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Admit.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the revisionist was not named in the First Information Report. He was not named in the statements, recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Talib, Amzad and others, who were summoned by the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, had filed the said Criminal Revisions, which were allowed by the coordinate Bench. The case of the present revisionist is covered by the said judgment dated 21.11.2022.

After the said submission, Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A., appearing for the State has fairly conceded that Talib, Amzad and others, who were summoned by the impugned order, had filed the Criminal Revisions and the said Criminal Revisions have been allowed by the coordinate Bench on 21.11.2022 and the case of the revisionist is covered by the said judgment dated 21.11.2022.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the evidence, produced by the prosecution, is not sufficient to meet the standards of a prima facie case as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92. Hence, the present Criminal Revision succeeds. The impugned order dated 29.06.2022, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.112 of 2021, is set aside qua the revisionist, namely, Matloob.