Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2532 of 2014 Revisionist :- Devendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Anil Srivastava,Sunil Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Agra in Criminal Case No. 1977 of 2010 (Sarvan Singh Vs. Devendra Singh and others) under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Fatehpur Seekari, District Agra, whereby discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.
As per prosecution version, Smt. Sunita daughter of complainant was married with revisionist/accused Devendra Singh on 29.04.1998. The golden ornaments and other valuable ornaments (Stri Dhan) was not returned by her-in-laws to Smt. Sunita. On the basis of statements of witnesses of complainant, learned trial court held that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against revisionist.
Learned counsel for revisionist contended that on the same facts accused were tried and acquitted in SC No. 31/2009 (State Vs. Devendra Singh and others) by the judgment and order dated 15.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. On the same fact revisionist cannot be tried again.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
From the perusal of judgment dated 15.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, it is evident that in that case Shri Devendra Singh and Smt. Man Kumari were charged from the offence punishable under Section 307, 324/34 I.P.C. and they were acquitted. Revisionist were not charged for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C.
As per provision of Section 300 Cr.P.C.:-
"A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made."
In this case, revisionists have not been tried for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. or for any other offence on the same facts.
In view of above, trial of revisionist for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is not barred. This point was not raised by the revisionist before trial court.
Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. In the result, instant criminal revision is dismissed.
However, offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.
In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State), it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against revisionists.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Sharad/-