Allahabad High Court
Durga Prasad And 6 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 23 January, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 14 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 35245 of 2019 Petitioner :- Durga Prasad And 6 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar,Rajendra Prasad Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that order dated 06.01.2006 passed by J.M, Ambedkarnagar constitute to the provision as prescribed in the statute. He has cited the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in case of "Pakhando Vs. State of U.P (H.C) reported 2001 (43) ACC 1096". He has submitted that the said order of the J.M, Ambedkarnagar was challenged before the revisional court by way of filing the criminal revision No. 17 of 2006 which has been rejected by order dated 06.11.2006 on the ground of the maintainability. The said order of the revisional court dated 06.11.2006 was challenged by way of filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C bearing no. 2942 of 2006 before this Court. The said application was allowed vide order dated 16.04.2019 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court with directions as quoted below:
"In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 6th November, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-1), Ambedkarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2006 is set-aside. The case is remitted back to the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-1), Ambedkarnagar for deciding the revision of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent no. 2.
The petition is, thus, allowed."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after the order of this Court, the revisional court has passed order dated 13.11.2019 and rejected the application on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the court below. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the revisional court has ignored the law established as well as the directions of this Court passed on the earlier occasion in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C bearing no. 2942 of 2006 dated 16.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the portion of the reasons to accept the protest application which is quoted for ready reference:-
" TkSlk fd p'enhn lkf{k;ksa us Hkh vius 'kiFk&i= ls fn;s x;s lk{; esa gSA foospuk ds LFkkukUrj.k ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk vius izHkko dk bLrseky dj bls dbZ ckj LFkkukUrfjr djk;k x;k gSA rFkk foospd }kjk ftl vk/kkj ij ,Q0 vkj0 yxk;k x;k gS og iwjh rjQ ls vlR; Hkh gSA vr% dsl Mk;jh ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd vfHk;qDrx.k jktkjke] jktsUnz] vfuy dqekj] nqxkZ izlkn] f'ko izlkn] gfj izlkn ,oa izsek nsoh dks /kkjk&379] 411] 504] 506] 114 Hkk0 na0 la0 esa ryc djus dk vk/kkj Ik;kZIr gSA ,Q0vkj0 fujLr fd;k tkrk gsA rnuqlkj ifjoknh dh izksVsLV izkFkZuk&i= Lohd`r dh tkrh gSA rFkk ;g okn QkStnkjh okn ds #i esa ntZ gksA eq0 v0 la0&36@40 /kkjk&379] 411] 504] 506] 411 Hkk0 na0 la0 esa leLRk vfHk;qDr ds fo#) laKku fy;k tkrk gSA rFkk mudh rych gsrq dk;kZy; tfj;s lEeu vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djsaA i=koyh fnukad 20&01&2006 dks is'k gksA Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that while accepting the protest application the J.M, Ambedkarnagar has considered the evidence available on the case diary as well as other evidences which are produced by the applicant along-with the application which is contrary to the law established as well as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and prayed that the said revisional order dated 13.11.2019 has been passed without considering the aforesaid arguments and without considering the law as established, therefore, the same may be set aside and the directions may be issued to the revisional court to consider the arguments as advanced and noted above while deciding the criminal revision which was filed against the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by J.M, Ambedkarnagar.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there are no illegalities committed by the J.M, Ambedkarnagar in passing order dated 06.01.2006 as well as by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-1, Ambedkarnagar in passing order dated 13.11.2019 and the instant petition has no ground to allow the prayer as made in the said writ petition. But the learned counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may be sent back to the revisional court for reconsideration and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am in agreement with the petitioner and therefore, the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the revisional court in criminal revision no. 17 of 2006 is set aside and the same is remitted back to the revisional court to decide the criminal revision in accordance with law within 3 months from the date of the submission of the certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 P.S