IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2002 Rajeev and others. ……….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand. ....…. Respondent. Present : Sri Pramod Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the revisionists. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27.11.2002 passed by 4th FTC / Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby learned Judge on the ground stated in impugned order found the case appropriate for levelling the charge upon the revisionists. This order was challenged before this Court and original file was summoned from the court below, so charge could not be levelled and the trial could not be proceeded further. 2. This Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA. Having gone through the impugned order, it appears that incident relates back to 08.11.1999, when mob of 400-500 persons, which was being steered by accused Brij Mohan, blocked the traffic. The people were agitating upon assassination of two abducted persons namely Munish and Kuldeep Pal. When persuaded by police, for restraining them to create blockade, the mob was infuriated and torched the Police Station. The case was registered and chargesheet was submitted against all the revisionists, who were arrested on the next day of the incident while Brij Mohan was arrested on the same day. 3. Arguments were advanced in the court below for discharge of the revisionists Rajeev, Anuj and Lokesh but 2 turning down the contentions on behalf of accused persons the court below found formidable evidence for levelling the charge against the accused persons. 4. Here also, it has been argued that it was not a premeditated gathering, so no offence under Section 147, 148 IPC is made out. It has also been contended that in the assembly of 400 – 500 people it is was not possible to identify the revisionists, so chargesheet has been submitted against them only on the basis of whim of the Investigating Officer. Per contra, the case diary manifests that Sub Inspector Kripal Singh, Constable Om Prakash and Constable Kushal Pal have identified the revisionists. They were part of infuriated mob, who set ablaze the Police Station and furniture therein, at the exhortation extended by Brij Mohan, these revisionists actively participated in the act complained of. 5. Absence of their names in the First Information Report rather makes the submission of chargesheet against them more reliable and rules out the possibility of their false implication, for the reason that they were implicated by Investigating Officer only after their names were revealed by police witnesses aforementioned. These witnesses do not have any rivalry or personal grudge against these revisionists to name them in the occurrence, so for the reasons as explicated above, the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the original file along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the court below and trial court is directed to proceed with trial as per law. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 05.12.2011 SKS