High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Lal Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 348 of 2007  RD-AH 1210 (18 January 2007)
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2007
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.