Sonu @ Mangesh S/O Bhimrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4066 Bom

revn.91.16.jud                             1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL REVISION NO.91 OF 2016


Sonu @ Mangesh s/o Bhimrao Chandurkar,
Aged about 37 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o Saroj Colony, Amravati,
Tah. & Distt. Amravati.                                                  .... Applicant

       -- Versus -

State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Rajapeth, Amravati,
Tah. & Distt. Amravati.                                           .... Non-Applicant


Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.P. for the Non-Applicant.

                CORAM             : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE              : JULY 5, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.


02]             This revision takes an exception to the order dated

13/05/2016 passed by the learned District Judge-7 and Additional

Sessions        Judge,          Amravati   below    Exh.27      in    Sessions         Trial

No.76/2005.



 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:33 :::
 revn.91.16.jud                          2


03]             The facts giving rise to the revision are as under :



            i. Applicant is accused no.3 in Sessions Trial No.76/2005

                pending before the learned District Judge-7 and

                Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for the offences

                under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 212 of the

                Indian Penal Code, Section 4 read with Section 5 of

                the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra

                Police Act.



            ii. Applicant       moved       an   application         [Exh.27]          for

                discharge. It is specifically averred in application that

                except confessional statement of co-accused, there is

                no incriminating material against accused no.3.



04]             From the impugned order, it can be seen that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded any reason

for rejecting application for discharge filed by accused no.3

except observing that charge-sheet has been submitted and

prima facie it appears that there is material to frame charge.

Apparently, the order is cryptic and without reasons.                          On this




 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:33 :::
 revn.91.16.jud                     3


sole ground, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned

order in the following terms :


                                ORDER

I. The order dated 13/05/2016 passed below Exh.27 in

Sessions Trial No.76/2005 by the District Judge-7 and

Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati is quashed and

set aside.

II. Matter is remanded to the District Judge-7 and

Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for deciding

application [Exh.27] afresh on merits in accordance

with the law.

III. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 10 th July,

2017.

IV. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

*sdw                                       (KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.)