This applicant under Section 482 application challenges the additional session judge s order rejecting his discharge application. This court held that no error was apparent at the current stage and expected the lower court to examine triable material during charge framing.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18452 of 2018
Applicant :- Son @ Sagun Singh Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed to set aside the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, District Jhansi in Session Trial No.22 of 2018, State Vs. Firoz and others, in Case Crime No. 1790 of 2017, under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, Police Station G.R.P., Jhansi, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application has been filed against the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, District Jhansi, by which the discharge application filed by the applicant in respect of offence under Section 489B and 489C IPC, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are no independent witness of the recovery and it is also very doubtful whether the currency notes that were actually alleged were counterfeit. Moreover, it is submitted that even the report of the mint at Nasik is not categorical to whether the currency note that were sent for examination were either the same as had been allegedly recovered from the applicant or that they were counterfeit. However, it is not disputed that the applicant is on bail and charge has yet not been framed.
Having considered the argument so advanced and keeping in mind the factual nature of allegations that may require appraisal of evidence, in view of the above, at present it does not appear that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the discharge application.
However, it is expected that at the stage of framing of charges, the learned court below would take into account the aforesaid facts and circumstance that exist and examine whether triable material exists regarding offence under Sections 489B and 489C IPC against the applicant.
Even if the charges are framed against the applicant, it is expected, the trial would be concluded expeditiously as possible, without allowing any undue or long adjournment to either party.
The present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.5.2018 Mini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Additional Session Judge erred in rejecting the discharge application under Sections 489B and 489C IPC.
Son @ Sagun Singh Kushwaha
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
