- (1.)LIST is revised.
(2.)HEARD Sri Prem Prakash and Ms. Akanksha Yadav, learned counsels for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-4-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C. (Court No. 20), Allahabad, in criminal revision No. 861 of 2006, allowing the revision filed by the opposite party No. 2 setting aside the order dated 8-9-2006 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, directing the Magistrate to decide the application under S.156(3) Cr. P. C. afresh moved at the behest of the first informant, which was rejected.

(3.)FACTS of the case are that the revisionist, who is accused in the cross case, filed certain injury report during course of the trial. First informant / opposite party No. 2 instituted an application under S.156(3) Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate claiming that injury report filed during course of the trial, was fabricated. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that since it was evidence filed during course of the trial, this application at the instance of the private complainant is not maintainable. It is for the court to take cognizance and proceed in accordance with law under S.340 Cr. P. C. after forming an opinion that evidence adduced in his court was fabricated.