Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Pal v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 473 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16693 (12 October 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Crl. Appeal no. (473) of 2007

Ram Pal . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .Applicant.

Versus

State of U.P. and another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Party.

----

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

Heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

There is 153 days' delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit in support of the application explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Grounds shown are sufficient.

The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

I have also heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A on admission/disposal of the appeal and with the consent of the parties' counsel the appeal is being decided at the stage of admission.

In Fast Track Court no.4, Fatehpur Special Trial no. 267 of 2001 against Rajendra son of Jiya Lal under section 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act was pending. Appellant Ram Pal had stood surety for Rajendra in the aforesaid trial. Since Rajendra did not appear, non-bailable warrant was issued against him and notices were also issued to sureties. The appellant's case is that thereafter he appeared before the court on 28.1.2006 along with accused Rajendra and produced Rajendra before the court and moved an application that he does not want to remain as surety for Rajendra, so the accused should be taken into custody and sent to jail. Certified copy of the aforesaid application has been filed by the appellant as Annexure no.1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal. There is also an order of the court on this application that accused Rajendra should be taken into custody and after preparation of warrant he should be sent to jail. Thereafter trial of the case against the accused Rajendra was concluded and he was acquitted of the charge vide judgment and order dated 4.7.2006, Annexure no.3 to the said affidavit.

It appears that notice issued to surety Ram Pal son of Shiv Charan was received back with a report that he had died and the court doubting the correctness of the report summoned the Gram Pradhan and the Sub Inspector who had submitted the report and then it was pointed out that the above report regarding death was in respect of another Ram Pal son of Shiv Charna and not of the appellant Ram Pal son of Shiv Charan and the report was erroneously given that Ram Pal son of Shiv Charan had died. The Presiding Officer of the court holding that the mistake was bona fide did not take any action against the persons who had given wrong report but passed an order that warrant for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- being bail amount should be issued against Ram Pal son of Shiv Charan. The case of the appellant is that after receiving information of this notice he appeared before the court and moved an application on 7.9.2007 for withdrawal of the above notice as well as recovery warrant because he had already produced the accused Rajendra before the court on 28.1.2006. He also filed an affidavit in support of that application. Grievance of the appellant is that the court has not yet passed any order on the above application of the appellant and proceedings of recovery are going on and his property has been attached and so he filed this appeal before this Court.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Presiding Officer of the court below should be directed to hear and decide the application dated 7.9.2007 of the appellant, which has been moved in his court for withdrawal of the notice and the recovery warrant.

I, therefore, allow this appeal to this extent that the lower court is directed to decide the application dated 7.9.2007 of the appellant filed in his court after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

The execution of recovery warrant shall remain stayed till disposal of the above application of the appellant by the trial court.

Dated:12.10.2007

RPP.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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