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


Rajua @ Raju v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 22 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 18 (1 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).



Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006

Rajua alias Raju Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.

Present Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 30.8.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court III. Court No. 8, Banda in criminal revision no. 9 of 2005, Km. Gudiya and another Vs. Rajua @ Raju and another whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgement and order  dated 19.10.2005 passed by learned I ACJM Banda in criminal case no. 3358/IX/03, State Vs. Rajua @ Raju under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 A I.P.C. and remanded the case for fresh trail after  summoning the injured witness Angad and other prosecution witnesses.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist Sri I.K. Chaturvedi and the learned AGA. None appeared for opposite party no.2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the revisionist  has contended that opposite party no. 2 and 3 had no locus standi to file criminal revision before the Sessions Judge against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. The opposite party no. 2 and 3 were neither complainant in the case, nor they were the witnesses of the occurrence for which the revisionist has faced trial. The learned counsel further contended that no revision lies against the order of acquittal before the Sessions Judge.

The learned AGA submitted that the learned I ACJM, vide judgement and order dated 19.10.2004 passed in criminal case no. 3358/IX/2003 on the date of appearance of the accused i.e.18.10.2004 after recalling the bailable warrant of the accused recorded the statement accused and without giving any further opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence recorded the statement of PW1 Daya Ram and the counsel for the accused dispensed with the formal proof of the documents of the prosecution. PW1 Daya Ram declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution story, thus he  passed judgement and order dated 19.10.2004 in a most cryptic manner and the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality in remanding the case to the learned Magistrate for fresh trial after summoning the witnesses.  

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

It is revealed from the perusal of the record that the learned ACJM on the date of appearance of the accused recalled his warrant, thereafter recorded the statement of the accused and after the learned counsel for the accused dispensed with the formal proof of the documents of the prosecution, recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and passed the judgement and order dated 19.10.2004. Thus, the learned ACJM did not give opportunity to the prosecution  to summon the remaining witnesses. From perusal of the FIR of the case, it appears that one Angad was also injured in the occurrence. Chandra Shekhar had also witnessed the occurrence but no opportunity was given by the learned Magistrate to the prosecution to summon these two witnesses.

It is also revealed that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Mata Prasad, who died in the occurrence.

In the case of Chaina Swami Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 S.C. 1788, the Apex Court has observed that the revisional court shall not ordinarily interfere against the judgement of acquittal but if the judgement of acquittal has been recorded without examination of the important witness and no effort was made to obtain their presence, the revisional court shall be justified to interfere while exercising its revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal.

It is true that the opposite party no. 2 and 3 according to the charge sheet filed are neither the complainant of the case, nor the eye witnesses, they are daughters of Mata Prasad who died in the occurrence.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fad Regan Vs. S.S.R. Beluswami 2003 Dand Nirnay Sangrah 908 has observed that the revisional court suo motto can exercise the power of revision and if the revision has been filed by the stranger to the case,it would make no difference.

Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court I am of the opinion that revision filed by opposite party no. 2 and 3, who are daughters of deceased Mata Prasad was maintainable. It is also clear from the foregoing discussions that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in not affording any opportunity to the prosecution to produce injured witness Angad and other witnesses and in concluding trial on the date of appearance of the accused. I, therefore, find that this revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Dt.           April, 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.