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


Sunder Lal & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 442 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 4099 (9 March 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.11

Criminal Revision No.442 of 1988

Sunder Lal and others .....Vs.....The State of U.P. and others.


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

Neither the counsel for the revisionists  nor the counsels for the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are present. Heard the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The proceedings under section  145 Cr.P.C., were decided in favour of the revisionists (herein) whereupon a Criminal Revision  No.322 of 1985 was filed in the court of Session Judge which was decided by Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated Feb. 2, 1988 in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 7. That revisional order is under challenge.

The disputed land is said to have been sold by Smt. Ram Kali to opposite party no.2 to 7.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists was  that Ram Kali was  an insane lady and the sale deed was executed by any other lady who impersonated herself as Ram Kali. The learned Magistrate in his order found that Ram Kali who executed the alleged sale deed was necessary to be examined before him to state as to whether she gave possession of the land to opposite party no.2 to 7 (respondents) or not and if she gave possession what was the date of giving such possession. The Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision  reversed the said finding of the judgment of the trial Magistrate.

In proceeding  under section 145 Cr.P.C., only two things are important for consideration:

1.Who was in possession of the disputed land within past two months?

2.Whether there was any threat to peace?

The Magistrate's view was that Ram Kali could have been examined to state whether the possession was given by her to the respondents or not and if given what was the date of possession. The view of the Magistrate was very fair and bonafide. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in negating or under  estimating the view expressed by the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge,   therefore, reversed the order passed by the Magistrate.

The revision is allowed. The order dated February 2, 1988 passed in Criminal Revision  No.322 of 1985 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut is set aside.

It is however, made open to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge   to pass order afresh in view of the reasons discussed above.

Communicate this order to the court below within 3 weeks.

Dt. 9.4.2007




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.