High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Biram Chand v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 12965 of 2006  RD-AH 18399 (1 November 2006)
COURT NO. 45
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12965 OF 2006
State of U.P and another..............................Respondents.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.C. Tripathi, Advocate, appearing for the contesting respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and some other co-accused under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted a final report. The respondent no.2 preferred a protest petition, which has been allowed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Deoband vide order dated 30.11.2002. One of the co-accused Anil Kumar preferred a criminal revision no. 75 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, which was allowed on 22.4.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner also preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 30.11.2002 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. This was belated revision and the revisional court dismissed the application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act vide order dated 8.9.2006, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that since the summoning of the co-accused Anil Kumar has been set aside by the revisional court, the order against the present petitioner is also liable to be quashed as allegations are identical to that of co-accused named in the First Information Report. Delay was explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Since the order against the co-accused Anil Kumar has attained finality, the present petitioner should also be given same relief on the ground of parity. The revisional court while rejecting the application for condonation of delay was of the view that the petitioner had knowledge of the order passed in respect of the co-accused Anil Kumar son of Braham Chand, who refrained from preferring a criminal revision earlier. I am not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2 Saharanpur in criminal misc. case no. 251 of 2004 Biram Chand Vs. State of U.P. and others decided along with criminal misc. case no. 258 of 2004 Kewal Ram and two others Vs. State and another. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the order dated 8.9.2006 passed in criminal misc case no. 251 of 2004, Biram Chand Vs. State is liable to be quashed. The judgment and order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2, Saharanpur is set aside.
The writ petition is finally disposed off with a direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall decide the criminal revision on merit within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him without raising any objection regarding delay in filing the criminal revision.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.