Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1793 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bobby Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Yogesh Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.10 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad whereby an application moved under Section
245(2), Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was rejected.
It appears from the record that in a complaint case in which the revisionist
was summoned under Section 323, 504, IPC the case was tried as a warrant
case and it was fixed for the evidence under Section 244, Cr.P.C. At that stage
only complainant supported his version and his witnesses turned hostile.
Therefore, an application was moved for discharge under Section 245(2),
Cr.P.C. by the revisionist. That application was rejected finding that there was
sufficient material to frame the charge.
Heard Mr. Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
AGA and perused the record.
Mr. Srivastava argued that once two independent witnesses became hostile,
there could be no propriety at all to frame the charges. I do not agree.
It is not the number of the witnesses which matters. The material thing is as
to whether a single witness can be relied upon or not. In view of this legal
position, if we analyse the fact of the case, we find that the only evidence of
the complainant which could not be shattered during 244, Cr.P.C. was
sufficient to indicate prima facie charges under Section 323, 504, IPC and the
trial court was perfectly justified in not discharging the revisionist and to
proceed further with the case.
In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order
impugned in this revision. Revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
T. Sinha