Ghanshyam Mishra And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4030 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 4030 ALL
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Ghanshyam Mishra And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 August, 2014

Bench: Ranjana Pandya




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1952 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Ghanshyam Mishra And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

Learned AGA has stated that he has sent a fax to seek a report whether ballistic report was filed or not, but no report has been received till date.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the ballistic report is a valuable piece of evidence, on which he can argue on the point of discharge. He has further argued that in similar circumstances, the High Court has held that the prosecution cannot withhold the ballistic report. Thus, he has contended that copy of report of ballistic expert must be given to him.

Perusal of the record shows that there is no report that the ballistic report has come on record. As far as framing of charge is concerned, charges can be framed against the revisionists on the basis of evidence available.

In 2011 (72) ACC 770 Santosh Kumar Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and another, it has been laid down that if there is ingredients of offence against the accused, charge should be framed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) ACR (SC), P. Vijayan vs State of Kerala and another, has laid down that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At the stage of charge, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and discharge is only remedy.

The disputed question of fact or the defence of the accused would not be considered by the Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The defence of the accused also cannot be looked into at this stage as it is premature.

Hence, I find the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and the revision is liable to be dismissed at summary stage.

The revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2014

Sazia