Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shyam Lal Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 348 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1210 (18 January 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.45


Shyam Lal Yadav....................................Petitioner.


State of U.P. and others........................ ..Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

Heard Ms. Sufia Saba learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The orders dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi in criminal revision no. 495 of 2006 and 18.10.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.1, Varanasi in criminal case no. 5671 of 2006 are impugned in the instant writ petition.

The First Information Report was registered at case crime no. 332 of 2002 under Sections 39/40/49-B of Electricity Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi. Charge sheet has been submitted after completing the investigation and the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. An application filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming discharge has been rejected. The petitioner filed a list of number of documents along with an application dated 23.6.2004. On the basis of said documents, the petitioner claimed discharge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed a copy of the order passed by the Deputy General Manager, Electricity Department Varanasi on 31.1.2004 as annexure no.4 to the writ petition, which is the basis for claiming discharge.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the proceedings have been initiated in respect of the house, that does not belong to the present petitioner. In the circumstances, bill issued by the Electricity Department was directed to be corrected by the Deputy General Manager, Electricity Department. Since the prosecution commenced, is in respect of the house no. K-47/289, that is not owned by the petitioner, therefore, he was liable to be discharged.

On perusal of the order of the Magistrate, it transpires that he refused to place reliance on the said document as defence evidence on behalf of the accused can only be seen at a later stage during trial and not at the stage of framing charge. This finding finds support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) JIC 289 (S.C.) overruling an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality whatsoever the orders of the courts below is within ambit of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principles laid down by the Apex Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 18.1.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.