Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARAFATULLA @ BABLU versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARAFATULLA @ BABLU v STATE - CRLR Case No. 827 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 5668 (3 December 2007)

S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.827/2007

Sarafatulla @ Bablu v.

State of Rajasthan 3rd December, 2007

Date of Order ::

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner.

Mr. V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. ....

This petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred against the order dated 2.8.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh framing charge for the offences punishable under

Sections 307 and 148 IPC.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that after investigation a challan was filed against certain persons viz. Ajeej Khan, Sarkur Khan,

Hamid Khan and Ayub Khan. All the persons named above faced trial and except Hamid Khan all were acquitted from the charges alleged. The petitioner was arrested subsequently and, therefore, a supplementary charge sheet was filed but there was no additional evidence to distinguish his case from the case of Ajeej Khan,

Sarkur Khan and Ayub Khan.

It is asserted that in view of the fact that other similarly situated persons have already been acquitted, thus, there was no reason to frame charge against the petitioner on basis of the same evidence available. To substantiate the contention, reliance is also placed by counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Balu Bai v.

State of Rajasthan [2005(7) RDD 2622 (Raj)], wherein this Court held that if no fresh material or evidence oral or documentary came in possession of or brought to the investigating officer and the challan against the accused has been filed only on the basis of material which was available at the time of filing the challan against other accused persons, the order framing the charge cannot sustain.

In the instant matter it is not in dispute that in supplementary charge sheet also no fresh material or evidence oral or documentary came in possession of the investigating agency. The charges against the petitioner are absolutely dependent to whatever evidence available at the time of filing the earlier challan. It is also not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is similar to Ajeej Khan,

Sarkur Khan and Ayub Khan. In view of it the framing of charge against the petitioner is absolutely unwarranted.

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 2.8.2007 passed by learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.42/07 framing the charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 148 IPC is quashed.

The petitioner is discharged from the offences alleged.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

Kkm/ps.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.