High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Details
NAND LAL versus STATE OF U.P.
Case Law Search
Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation
Judgement
Nand Lal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1605 of 1987 [2006] RD-AH 14379 (25 August 2006)
|
Reserved
Criminal Revision No. 1605 of 1987
Nand Lal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revisionist.
Versus
State of U.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Party.
----
Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.
This is a revision against the order dated 9.9.1987 passed by Sri N.S. Shamsheri, then Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision no. 378 of 1986, State Vs. Nand Lal.
The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the present revisionist and five co-accused were challaned under section 5/9, Explosives Act by the police of P. S. Delhi Gate, Meerut. The aforesaid accused persons had moved an application for return of that property which was recovered form their possession and was said to be an explosive substance. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties allowed the application and ordered that the property should be returned back to the accused persons. Aggrieved with that order the State filed six revisions against accused persons including criminal revision no. 378 of 1986 against Nand Lal, present revisionist in the court of the Sessions Judge, Meerut. These revisions were heard and decided by Sri N.S. Shamsheri, then Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Meerut vide his order dated 9.9.1987 in which he held that the property which was recovered from the accused was to be sent for chemical examination and to expert for analysis and so there was no question of returning the same to the accused persons and the prosecution will be deprived of the opportunity to get it examined by expert if the property is returned to the accused persons. Therefore, he allowed the revisions and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved with that order accused Nand Lal filed this revision in this Court.
None appeared for the revisionist at the time of hearing of the revision even after revision of the cause list, hence, I heard the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge I find that it does not suffer from any illegality. When the property which was recovered from possession of the accused was claimed to be an explosive substance and was being allegedly used for making an explosive as per the prosecution case, the same could not be returned to the accused before an inquiry on the point by obtaining expert's report and the order of the learned Magistrate on the point was erroneous and the learned Magistrate had acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly allowed the revision and the order passed by him setting aside the order of the Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality and it deserves to be up-held.
The revision in this way has got no force and it is accordingly dismissed. The order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge is confirmed.
Stay order is vacated.
Dated:25.8.2006
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.
Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.