Satish Kumar Mittal , J.@mdashThe petitioners, who are facing the trial in case FIR No. 123 dated 1.8.1995 under Sections
465/468/471/420/209/193/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, have filed this criminal revision against the order dated
January 24, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby on the revision filed by the State, order dated 18.9.2004 passed
by the trial Court discharging the accused, has been set aside.
2. In this case, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide order dated 18.9.2004 dropped the proceedings against the accused on the
ground of limitation and discharged them. The revisional Court has set aside that order while observing that in this case the challan was presented in
the Court, and thereafter the cognizance was taken and charge framed against the accused. Thereafter, the only stage is final judgment of
conviction or acquittal, but the Judicial Magistrate cannot review its order and discharge the accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was made after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed u/s 468 Cr. P.C.,
therefore, in view of the limitation, no cognizance should have been taken by the Court, and as such the continuation of the proceedings against the
petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly discharged the accused. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Gopal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (Now
State), and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and Another, .
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners. Undisputedly, in
this case the charge was framed and the case was at the stage of the prosecution evidence when the trial Court discharged the accused. In my
opinion, the revisional Court has rightly observed that after framing of the charge, the only stage is to record the evidence and then to conduct the
trial on merits. After framing of the charge, the stage is either acquittal or conviction and not discharge. The judgments cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioners are arising from the final judgment and are distinguishable on facts. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. Dismissed.
6. However, keeping in view the facts of the case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.