Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PALAT & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Palat & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3954 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7137 (3 April 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. 43

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2006

Ram Palat and others Vs. State of U.P. and onother

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned orders dated 5.12.2005 and 23.2.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Basti and learned Sessions Judge, Basti respectively.

It appears that a F.I.R. was lodged against Ram Palat, Ram Pal, Awadhesh and Smt. Prabhawati Devi for allegedly committing theft of the parts of pumping set owned by Smt. Jamurata Devi. The local police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet against Ram Pal only.

During trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Smt. Jamurta Devi, the complainant and P.W.2 Ram Naresh. Both are said to be eyewitnesses of theft and they specifically disclosed in the court that theft was committed by all the four accused out of which Ram Pal and Ram Palat were dragging the engine and fan belt and their associates Smt. Prabhawati Devi and Awadhesh, son of Ram Palat, were pushing. Both claimed to have seen the incident of theft and accordingly they deposed in the court. After having considered their statements, learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial.

The petitioners challenged this order in the court of Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the witnesses had disclosed the specific role of the petitioners in the commission of theft of engine.

In view of the material on record and after considering the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, I find no illegality in the impugned orders challenged in this petition. In my considered opinion, this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is hereby dismissed. When the petitioners appear in the court below, their prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously as per decision of this Court given in Smt. Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) A.L.R. 390, in Case Crime No. 150 of 1998, Under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Gaur, District Basti.

3.4.2006

OP/3954/06  


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.