JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd of August, 2014 recorded by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag in case titled ‘Sanjay Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.’; reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30th of March, 2006 passed by the Commandant-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, 95 BN CRPF, Heevan Cinema Hall, Ashajipora, Anantnag, i.e., the appellant No.4, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents were asked to engage a defence Counsel and that they were also asked if they were not in a position to engage the defence Counsel, then the Department would request for engaging a defence Counsel on its own expenses. Besides, a communication was also addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag to provide Counsel to the respondents, as such, the observation of the learned Sessions Court that the respondents were not given a fair trial is not tenable. It is also stated that the respondent No.2, i.e., Sharda Kumar accepted the allegations levelled against him and his admission of the guilt was recorded as per the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), however, the finding given by the learned Sessions Court that the same has not been recorded in accordance with the Code is without substance. It is further stated that the witnesses were examined by the Prosecution and cross-examined by the respondents and after appreciation of the evidence, the appellant No.4 awarded fifteen (15) days simple imprisonment to the respondents and also ordered the dismissal of the respondents from service w.e.f. 30th of March, 2006, but the observation made by the learned Sessions Court that the respondents were not given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses is not supported by the record, when the respondent No.1, in fact, had cross-examined the witnesses. It is next pleaded that, even if it is assumed that the appellant No.4 did not conduct the trial in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code and observed the principles of natural justice in breach, still the Sessions Court was required to order re-trial of the respondents instead of acquitting the respondents.

2. Mr Nazir Ahmad Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, vehemently argued that the observation made by the learned Sessions Court that the respondents were not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses is contrary to record and further that the appellant No.4 had convicted and sentenced the respondents after due appreciation of evidence brought on record by the appellants. It is further urged that the respondents were given a fair trial by the appellant No.4 and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, CRPF Act and Evidence Act were meticulously followed by the appellant No.4 during the trial, but the learned Sessions Court has reversed the judgment on technical grounds, which is not permissible.

3. Per Contra, Mr Sheikh Mushtaq, the learned Counsel representing the respondents, submitted that the mandate of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was violated by the appellants, which is evident from the record itself, in as much as the appellants, no doubt, had written a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag for providing one Advocate from his listed panel to attend the judicial trial proceedings on behalf of the respondents, but no further steps were undertaken by the appellants to ensure that the respondents were provided proper legal assistance to defend the false and frivolous proceedings initiated against them. The learned Counsel further argued that the provisions of the Code of the Criminal Procedure have been observed more in breach than in compliance, as no incriminating evidence was put to the respondents and further that the appellants had manufactured the complaint dated 17th of March, 2006, whereas the cognizance was taken on 16th of March, 2006 by the Magistrate c