Allahabad High Court
Diwakar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 16 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2642 of 2010 Petitioner :- Diwakar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 2.7.10 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Varanasi in S.T. No.370/10 whereby the application for discharge moved by the revisionist was rejected.
It appears from the record that a bomb was recovered from a Canester which was later on disposed of by the police. During investigation it came to light that the revisionist, who was Sub-Inspector in the police department, had contacted his colleague Akshaiwar Pandey and disclosed that he had bomb which he wanted to plant. However, Akshaiwar Pandey did not take interest and later on the bomb was recovered by the police. After investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police. At the stage of charge the application for discharge was moved which was rejected by the impugned order.
Heard Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Pandey that the sanction for prosecuting the revisionist is bad as the charge sheet in the case was submitted by the police while the sanction was obtained by the C.B.C.I.D. It has also been argued that the statement of Akshaiwar Pandey and one other police officer was recorded in order to falsely implicate the revisionist.
So far as the sanction part of the argument is concerned, that is a matter of trial as to whether the sanction obtained by the C.B.C.I.D. was valid one or not and on this score there was no justification to discharge and the trial court was right in this regard.
So far as the other part of the argument is concerned, that too could not be adjudged at the time of framing of the charge. At the time of framing of the charge only this much was required to see as to whether a prima facie case was made out on the basis of the evidence available in the case diary and because there was prima facie evidence against the revisionist of two witnesses namely Akshaiwar Pandey and Shiv Pujan Singh, there was all justification for the trial court to proceed to frame charge.
Thus, in view of the above, I do feel that the discharge application was rightly rejected and there is no impropriety in the order impugned in this revision. Revision is dismissed.
It has been brought to my notice that the revisionist is at the verge of retirement and would loose all his retiral benefit, if the case is not decided with utmost promptitude. Therefore, in such view of the matter, it is directed that the court shall conclude the trial strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 309, Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010 T. Sinha