Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1468 of 2010 Petitioner :- Yogesh Mahajan & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Mahendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 27.3.10 passed by the
ACJM, Court No.8, Ghaziabad in case no.172/09 whereby the discharge
application moved by the revisionists and co-accused Amit Saini were
decided. These applications were rejected.
It appears that a motor vehicle was purchased by co-accused Amit Saini by
giving forged draft to the seller company. When the draft could not be
encashed, investigation was conducted and Amit Saini was arrested from
whom bank draft and other material was recovered, however, the vehicle
could not be recovered. That vehicle was recovered from a garage and it came
to light that it was given at the garage by the revisionists and one other. By
concluding that the revisionists were colluding with Amit Saini charge sheet
was submitted against the revisionists. When the case came at the stage of
charge, an application for discharge was moved by the revisionists and
another application was moved by Amit Saini. Both these applications were
rejected.
Heard Mr. Ankit Gaur holding brief of Mr. Mahendra Prakash, learned
counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Gaur that the case of the revisionists was entirely
different from Amit Saini. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the
revisionists, however, it was wrongly mentioned in the order by the court that
recovery was also made from all the accused persons. He also argued that as
the revisionists were bona fide purchasers, they could not be tagged with any
liability along with Amit Saini.
In view of the above arguments, it appears that the trial court has not
correctly decided the application. While deciding the application for discharge
all the arguments of the revisionists should have been taken into consideration
and the evidence should also be considered in respect of the parties under
which the charges were proposed. In such view of the matter, I am of the view
that it is a case where the matter requires reconsideration by the court
concerned.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Order dated 27.3.10 is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the concerned court for deciding discharge
application of the revisionists afresh on the basis of the evidence available
before it. It is made clear that it shall not be necessary for the court below to
decide the application for discharge moved by Amit Saini as he has not
approached this court in this revision.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
T. Sinha