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


Om Prakash Gupta & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1020 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 16119 (28 September 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. 14.

Crl. Rev. No. 1020 of 2004.

Om Prakash Gupta & others...................Revisionists


State of U.P. & others............................Opposite parties.


Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

1. Heard Sri Deepak Gaur, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

2. From the record, it transpires that application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. was moved by Om Prakash Mishra (O.P. No. 2 herein), in the court of CJM Kanpur-Dehat. On the basis of that application, case No. 1011 of 2002 was registered. That application was rejected by C.J.M. Kanpur-Dehat, vide order dated 28.11.2002, which was challenged by the applicant Om Prakash Mishra in the court of Sessions Judge Kanpur-Dehat in Crl. Revision No. 23 of 2003, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 5, Kanpur-Dehat vide order dated 12.12.2003, whereby the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. was sent back for fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Both these orders have been challenged by the accused-revisionists in this revision.

3. Having heard parties counsel and given my thoughtful consideration, instant revision against both the orders is misconceived, as accused-revisionists have no right to challenge these orders, because no adverse order has been passed against them so far. Application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has been sent back for fresh decision. The accused have no locus standi to challenge the order dated 12.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Dehat, in Crl. Revision No. 23 of 2003. Impugned order dated 28.11.2002 was also not against the accused-revisionists and hence they have no right to challenge that order also.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, revision has got no force and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 11.03.2004 stands vacated.

Office to send a copy of this order to the C.J.M. Kanpur-Dehat for further necessary action.

Dtd. 28.09.2007

v.k. updh.


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.