Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K vs Balkar Singh & Others on 12 August, 2010
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Rev No. 45 OF 2009 State of J&K Petitioners Mohd. Bashir & ors. Respondent !Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate ^Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate, for no.1, Mr. Rajnish Oswal, Advocate, for 2 & 3. Honble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir Date: 12.08.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
Petitioner-State has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu in case State vs Balkar Singh & others, discharging accused Mohd. Bashir-respondent no.1, on the grounds taken in the memo of revision petition. It appears that a complaint/FIR came to be lodged by one Kewal Krishan Gandotra against the accused/respondents in Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu. Accordingly, FIR No.35/2004 came to be registered. The said information set the police in motion. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and Challan came to be presented against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 RPC. The learned CJM vide order dated 7.9.2006 committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who transferred the same to the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu for disposal under law.
The trial court-3rd Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments at the charge stage discharged accused-respondent no.1 and charge sheeted respondents 2 & 3 for the commission of offence punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC. The Charge was read over to accused-respondents 2 & 3 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and prosecution was directed to lead evidence vide order dated 5.5.2009.
The complainant-Kewal Krishan Gandotra feeling aggrieved questioned the order dated 5.5.2009 by the medium of Cr. Revision No.3/2010 so far as it relates to the discharge of Mohd. Bashir-respondent no.1. Respondents 2 & 3 herein and the State came to be arrayed as proforma respondents in the said petition. The said revision petition came to be dismissed by this court vide judgment and order dated 1.2.2010 while upholding the order of trial court so far as it relates to the discharge of Mohd. Bashir-respondent no.1, a certified copy whereof produced by Mr. Kotwal is made part of the file.
Thus, in the given circumstances, the revision petition in hand is virtually a second revision petition, which on the face of it is not maintainable. Viewed thus revision petition is dismissed.
Jammu (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Dated:12.8.2010 Judge (Anil)