Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADEEP KUMAR KATIYAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pradeep Kumar Katiyar v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 11495 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18350 (30 October 2006)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

 ( Court No. 19)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   11495    of 2006

Pradeep Kumar Katiyar, son of Sri

S.N. Katiyar, R/o 118/13, Kaushalpuri,

Gumti No.5, P.S. Nazirabad

District Kanpur Nagar ..........  ........ Applicant -Accused.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Pradeep Singh ( Informant)

Son of Sri Mahendra Singh,

Regional Commercial Manager

Hindustan Lever Limited

Block A, Plot B, South City,

Gurgaon ( Haryana .........   Opp.parties-Respondents.

A n d

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   11537    of 2006

Vinod Kumar Malhotra, son of Sri

Kishan Lal, R/o 87/212, Acharya Nagar, P.S. Raipurwa

District Kanpur Nagar ..........  ........ Applicant -Accused.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Pradeep Singh ( Informant)

Son of Sri Mahendra Singh,

Regional Commercial Manager

Hindustan Lever Limited

Block A, Plot B, South City,

Gurgaon ( Haryana .........   Opp.parties-Respondents.

*************

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. The aforesaid two petitions are being disposed off by a common order because the facts and controversy arising therein are similar. The complainant is the same, while the accused, who are stockists of the complainant company are different and that is why two different first information reports are filed by the complainant company in two different police stations, where the accused-stockists' offices were situated.  The counsel representing the two accused-stockists in this Court is the same.

2. The complainant is a well known company of India by the name of ''Hindustan  Lever Ltd.' A first information report  was filed against the aforesaid accused stockists by the complainant company under Sections 418,420,421,424,405,406,409,465 ,471 and 120-B I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheets were filed by the police in both the cases.  The cases against aforenoted accused being Case No. 1472 of 2006 and 7598 of 2006 are being  tried in the Court of Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar.

3. Controversy which brings the accused-applicant to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is about the furnishing of copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution for allowing the accused only to make an inspection as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard  Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K. Sachan and Sri Ravindra Verma, Advocates for the applicants and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A.  for the State in these petitions.

5. So much of judicial and non-judicial time has  been wasted in this controversy resulting in snails progress in the case.  Since the record was voluminous  and the report of the  copying section was that it was not possible to prepare copies of such huge and  voluminous  documents, the courts below ordered  the accused to inspect the record as provided in the II proviso of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused continued  to insist  on supply of copies and raised various objections in connection of inspection of documents.

6. The matter has, however now been, amicably resolved by the mutual agreement of the counsel of parties to the effect that  instead of inspection as ordered by the Courts below, copies of all the documents filed by the prosecution shall be supplied to the accused  and the accused will bear the costs of preparation of the photo stat copies. It has been so mentioned by the accused in the  Petition itself  and the counsel for the accused reiterated  the same in Court.

7. The controversy thus stands resolved and the Trial Court shall decide what amount the accused/applicant will deposit in Court in connection  with the expenses to be made in preparation of copies  and thereafter copies shall be expeditiously supplied.

8. Having seen the record, there arises an impression that the learned Magistrate has been a little lax in exercising  effective control over the proceedings and making efforts to get the case decided shiftily. A  direction was also given by the Supreme Court about the case being decided expeditiously, mention whereof, is contained in the petitions. The laxity of the Magistrate stands demonstrated by the  circumstance that despite the fact that there was no order of stay of proceedings passed by this Court in these proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate put-down his pen to wait for disposal of these proceedings in this Court.

9. The learned Magistrate is expected  to be more alert,  more active  and more speedy. The cases must be decided without any further delay.

10. These petitions are disposed of accordingly.

11. Copy of this order be placed on the record of Crl. Misc. application No. 11537 of 2006. Two copies of this order be dispatched  forthwith  by the Registry  to District and Sessions Judge, Kianpur Nagar  for sending it to Special Chief Judicial Magistrate  for compliance.

Dt:  30th October, 2006

  n.u.


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.