Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Prashant Verma @ Guddu & 4 Ors. on 9 March, 2021
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 45 of 2008 Revisionist :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Prashant Verma @ Guddu & 4 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- A.H. Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amrit Kumar Tiwari,Rashid Ahmad,Saggir,Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Upendra Prakash Pathak Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning order dated 03.11.2007 discharging the respondents under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in respect of Sessions Trial No.517 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.Nil of 2006 under Sections 41/411/414/413/420/406, Police Station Zaidpur, Barabanki as well as order dated 15.11.2007 whereby 100 sacks of rice which was allegedly recovered by the police from the possession of the respondents was ordered to be released in their favour.
2. Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State-revisionist submits that rice in question belonged to one Anup Kumar Singh s/o Kamla Prasad Singh, R/o Village & Post Saidpur, Bhitri, Police Station Malipur, Ambedkar Nagar who in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that his rice in 180 sacks was sent to M/s Rupesh Trading Company, Nasik, Maharastra, but the same could not reach there and it was later on transpired that the police had recovered the said rice from the respondents-accused.
3. It is relevant to mention here that there is nothing on record to suggest that said Anup Kumar Singh had given any complaint to the police regarding his rice going missing which was sent to M/s Rupesh Trading Company, Nasik, Maharastara. Learned Sessions Court after considering the charge-sheet and evidence available on record had found that the investigation had been completely a sham.
4. I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order in question and, therefore, there is no question of interfering with the impugned order of discharge as well as order of release of the rice in question. This revision is thus, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.3.2021 prateek