This criminal revision, filed against an order framing charges under IPC 162, 420, and 467, was dismissed. The court, hearing only the State, found no merit in the argument that the lower court acted illegally or that the defence was improperly excluded at the charge-framing stage.
The criminal revision has been dismissed.
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. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 850 of 1989
Revisionist :- Ram Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Virendra Singh,Viresh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.Ga.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist.
2-Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
3-This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 1.5.1989 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Special Case No. 6 of 1989 about the framing of charges against the revisionist under Sections 162, 420 and 467 I.P.C.
4-From perusal of the record, it transpires that on 01.05.1989 charges were framed against the revisionist under Sections 162, 420 and 467 I.P.C.
5-In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the revisionist had taken Rs.20,000/- from the complainant to get the chemical examination report in favour of accused under Section 302 I.P.C. which was pending in the trial court and he made forged documents for this purpose and cheated and submitted forged report with forged sign.
6-In the case of Swarn Anand v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977 Cr.L.J. 355 (All) , this Court has held that the expression "in the opinion of a Magistrate" means that the Magistrate has to merely form an opinion as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. It does not require him to record any reasons for his so doing.
7- In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, 1990 Cr.L.J. 773 , the Court has held that at this stage the defence of the accused is not the concern of the Court and it is only for the accused to appear and then put his defence which is to be considered by the Court at the time of framing of charge.
8- In the case of Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC
204 , the Apex court has held that the defence open to the accused is not to be seen at the time of issuance of process.
9-In view of the discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 01.05.1989.
10-The criminal revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11-The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
12- Lower court record along with the copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for information and compliance. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 7.8.2018 OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order framing charges against the revisionist under Section 162, 420 and 467 IPC suffered from any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness.
Whether the defence of the accused was a concern of the court at the stage of framing of charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swarn Anand v. Chief Judicial MagistrateReferred¶10
Swarn Anand v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977 Cr.L.J. 355 (All)
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar JhanjhriReferred¶11
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, 1990 Cr.L.J. 773
Anil Saran v. State of BiharReferred¶13
Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 204 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
