Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 (2) Sri Arjun Singh vs. IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Aligarh & Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45549 of 1993, decided on 20th December, 1993, (3) Gurpreeet Singh vs. Chatterbhuj Goel, reported in AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 95, (4) Bachcha vs. Lakhpali Devi & Ors., reported in 1972 AIR (All) 513. 17. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case, wherein the intent and scope of Order XXXII Rule 4A of the Code of Civil Procedure was neither under consideration nor has been examined. 18. It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference-- Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply; AIR 1969 SC 1267, wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference-Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. vs. Dominion of India & Ors; (1984) 3 SCC 46. 19. This Court may record that the findings recorded by the courts below in respect of right of Babali to represent Shanker under the impugned judgment has become final between the plaintiff and defendant-Shanker, as he has not chosen to file any second appeal. 20. No other point was pressed. No substantial questions of law arises. The second appeal is dismissed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J. Criminal Revision No. 2971 of 2009 Kailash Babu Gupta …Revisionist Versus Sate of U.P. and another…Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Satish Trivedi Sri Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 397- Criminal Revision offened under Section 302,307,504 IPC-after committe of case before session judge-Discharge application or ground-during investigation nowhere named the revisionist merely on suspicion no charge can be framed-held-court not bound with conclusion of investigation officer-even on suspicion-charges can be framed-No illegality committed by Trail Court-No interference called for Held: Para 13 It is true that the investigating officer has concluded that the involvement of the revisionist Kailash Gupta has not been found in the murder of Gaurav but the court is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer. There is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the accused Kailash Gupta is also prima facie involved in the murder of Gaurav and the infliction of injuries to Mangal Tiwari.
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State of U.P. and another 979 Case law discussed: (2008) 10 SCC 681, C.B.I. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 514. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.) 1. This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by Sessions Judge Jalaun rejecting the prayer of the revisionist for his discharge in S.T. No. 200/2008. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the first informant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari lodged a report at P.S. Kandaura, District Jalaun on 16.8.2008 at 5.40 p.m. alleging therein that on 16.8.2008 at about 12.30 p.m. accused Kapil Gupta and Kailash Gupta abused Mangal Tiwari and Gaurav. When Mangal Tiwari objected to this, accused Kailash Gupta exorted Kapil to kill Mangal and Gaurav. Kapil thereafter, opened fire upon Mangal Tiwari and Gaurav causing injuries to both of them. Subsequently, Gaurav was declared dead. 3. After registration of case at crime no. 140 of 2008 for the offences under Section 302, 307, 504 I.P.C., investigation ensued and culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against Kapil Gupta and Kailash Gupta. 4. The Magistrate committed the case to the court of of Sessions where the case was registered as S.T. No. 200 of 2008. 5. The Revisionist Kailash Gupta moved an application in the court of Sessions Judge alleging therein that from the evidence collected during the investigation and the conclusions recorded by the investigating officer, it is confirmed that the revisionist Kailash Gupta was not present at the spot and as such there is no evidence against him for framing charges. He requested for his discharge from the case. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution as well as revisionist Kailash Gupta rejected the application vide order dated 7.7.2009 and it is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA and perused the papers filed with the revision. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that during investigation the statements of the eye witnesses namely Ramesh Shiv Hare, Pappu @ Abdul Kalam, Vijay Gupta, Vikram Singh, and Anil Gupta were recorded in which they all stated that the revisionist Kailash was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. The contention of the revisionist is that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence collected during the investigation has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner and that the order is illegal. In fact there was no evidence against the revisionist to frame the charge hence the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge is liable to be set-aside. 9. I have considered over the argument and I feel that it does not contain any water. It is an established principal of law that the charge may be framed against accused even where there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. In this connection
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 5: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 57 and 58:
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 59 and 60:
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?