IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Crl. Revision No.: 118 of 2008. Decided on: 18.07.2008. Vinoj Kumar Sharma … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This criminal revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur district at Nahan passed in Criminal Case No.9/1 of 2007 dated 10.6.2008. The petitioner has moved an application under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking his discharge before the learned C.J.M., Sirmaur at Nahan. The application was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur on 10.6.2008. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that the order dated 10.6.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the order dated 10.6.2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - The contention of Mr. P.P. Chauhan that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses while considering the application is liable to be rejected. It is for the trial Court during the trial to see whether there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses or not and its effect. Mr. P.P. Chauhan could not substantiate that the case has been registered against his client on extraneous considerations. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record has rightly rejected the application. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order dated 10.6.2008. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. July 18, 2008. (sck)