Shyam Bhola vs State on 29 June, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 796 / 2002
Shyam Bhola son of Seva Ram, by caste Punjabi, resident of
Sector 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.

—-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain Mr. K.S. Lodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI
Order

29/06/2017

Instant revision is directed against the judgment

dated 13/08/2002 passed by Sessions Judge (Special Judge, NDPS

Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 89/2000 by which trial Court

has framed charges against the petitioner for offence under

Sections 8/18 and 8/26 of the NDPS Act and Section 406 I.P.C.

Heard the arguments of both the sides, learned

counsel for the revisionist has vehemently contended that the

impugned order has not been passed correctly and the argument

advanced with respect to legality of framing of charge have not

been dealt with by the trial Court and by a cryptic order charges

have been framed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon

Vijay Kumar Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr., 2015(1)
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-796/2002]

Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 45 and has contended that the revision be allowed

and the case may kindly be remanded back to the trial Court for

passing fresh order after hearing the parties in a speaking way.

Learned public prosecutor has contended that

there is no flaw in the order impugned and no explicit reasons are

needed to be mentioned in framing the charges, hence, the

revision lacks merit and it be dismissed.

READ  Mahendra Singh And Anr., ... vs State Of M.P. on 7 February, 1995

Heard both sides and perused the order impugned

and perusal of the order dated 13/08/2002 pertaining to framing

of charge shows that it does not reveal as to what were the

arguments advanced by counsel for the revisionist on the point of

framing of charge nor anything is there as to in which way the

arguments were dealt.

This Court in Vijay Kumar Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan Anr., 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 45 has observed that

cryptic order in respect of framing of charge is not sustainable and

material facts considered for framing of charges needs to be

mentioned in the order.

The impugned order has been passed way back

on 13/08/2002 and the trial is lying hampered for about a period

of fifteen years or so.

Upon considering all the factual aspect and nature

of the impugned order, it appears just and lawful to remand the

matter to the trial Court by directing the trial Court to pass fresh

order in respect of framing of charge/s after affording an

opportunity to both the parties.

(3 of 3)
[CRLR-796/2002]

Resultantly, the revision is allowed and impugned

order passed by the trial Court is quashed and learned trial Court

is directed to hear both the sides and pass fresh order dealing

with the substance of the arguments, if advanced and expedite

the trial.

The revision petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.

The revisionist is directed to appear before the trial Court on

26/07/2017.

Let the record of the trial Court be remitted back

READ  Smt. Hawa Kanwar vs State & Ors on 13 July, 2017

expeditiously with copy of the order.

(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J.

Sanjaysolanki,pa

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *