AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Maithitisharan, J.
Heard Shri Pradeep Katare, counsel for the applicant, on admission of this criminal revision.
Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, Govt. Advocate for the State.
The brief facts of this case are thus:
A case u/s 336,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was pending in the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind, as Sessions Trial No. 154/97. The prosecution evidence was over and then an application u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the prosecution to withdraw the case. It was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 23-3-99, observing that the prosecution evidence had already been recorded and the statements of the accused u/s 313, Cr. P.C. were also recorded. It was frurther observed by the learned trial Court that the accused persons had not adduced any defence evidence. Arguments of the parties were heard and the case was posted for judgment for the next date i.e. 24/3/99, on which date judgment was pronounced, acquitting all the three accused persons.
On 24-3-99 the learned trial Court also observed that the accused Surendra (applicant in this revision petition) was absconding, hence non-bailable warrant be issued against him.
Now the absconding accused/applicant Surendra has filed this revision petition praying that the impugned order dated 24/3/99 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. The learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the trial Court had erred in not allowing the application filed by the prosecution u/s 321, Cr.P.C.
Looking to the provisions of Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure discretion has been given to the Court in this regard, keeping in that aspect of the case in view it is but clear that the discretion was exercised by the trial Court in judicial manner, it was not exercised arbitrarily. That apart, the accused/applicant Surendra was not at all being tried in that Sessions trial as he was abscoding. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there has not been an illegality of impropriety in passing the impugned order by the trial Court. Thus, this revision petition is absolutely devoid of any merit which is not admitted and is dismissed in limine.