Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 702 (MP)

Surendra v. State of M. P.

1999-09-08

MAITHLI SHARAN

body1999
JUDGMENT The brief facts of this case are thus : A case under section 336, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was pending in the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge. Bhind, as Sessions Trial No. 154/97. The prosecution evidence was over and then an application under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the prosecution to withdraw the case. It was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 23.3.99, observing that the prosecution evidence had already been recorded and the statements of the accused u/s 313, CrPC were also recorded. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that the accused persons had not adduced any defence evidence. Arguments of the parties were heard and the case was posted for judgment for the next date i.e. 24.3.99, on which date judgment was pronounced, acquitting all the three accused persons. On 24.3.99 the learned trial Court also observed that the accused Surendra (applicant in this revision petition) was absconding, hence, non-bailable warrant be issued against him. Now, the absconding accused-applicant Surendra has filed this revision petition praying that the impugned order dated 24.3.99 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the trial Court had erred in not allowing the application filed by the prosecution under section 321, CrPC. Looking to the provisions of section 321, CrPC discretion has been given to the Court in this regard. Keeping that aspect of the case in view it is but clear that the discretion was exercised by the trial Court in a judicial manner; it was not exercised arbitrarily. That apart, the accused-applicant Surendra was not at all being tried in that Session trial as he was absconding. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there has not been any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order by the trial Court. Thus, this revision petition is absolutely devoid of any merit which is not admitted, and is dismissed in limine.