Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Jaisram vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1056 of 2019 Applicant :- Jaisram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi,Vipin Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This application u/s 482 is directed against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Basti and the consequential order dated 18.12.2018 passed by S.D.M., Rudhauli on the ground that after the order for cutting the crops was passed in favour of the applicant by the S.D.M. on 20.11.2018, the opposite party no. 2 filed a revision petition on 24.11.2018 and 05.12.2018 was date fixed for hearing on admission, but without issuing notice to the second party/applicant, on the very same day i.e. on 05.12.2018, the learned Sessions Judge admitted the revision, heard the revision and finally allowed the same directing the court below, namely the S.D.M., Rudhauli to proceed with the matter under Section 146(2) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the consequential order has come to be passed by the S.D.M., Rudhauli on 18.12.2018.
The argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant is that while the revision itself was not maintainable against the interlocutory order directing for cutting the grievance by the S.D.M., and yet the Court sitting in revision admitted the revision on the same day without issuing notices to the aggrieved party namely the applicant allowing the same issued positive direction to the S.D.M., Rudhauli to proceed under Section 146(2) of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the order dated 28.11.2018. It is urged under the circumstances, that the S.D.M., Rudhauli was left with no option but to proceed to pass an order under Section 146(2) of the Cr.P.C.
I find from the bare perusal of the order dated 05.12.2018 that it contains the sentence:-
'aaj prastut hua. Angikaran ke bindu par suna gaya.'
Presented today, admitted today and heard today.
(English translation by Court) Thus, order impugned in the revision was straightway set aside on the very first day after hearing. The direction was also issued to pass order for attachment under Section 146(2) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, I do not find that S.D.M. has acted upon the order date 05.12.2018 passed by the Court below sitting in revision and referring to the said order has passed the impugned order under Section 146(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. could not dispute that the revision petition which was not only stated to have been presented on 05.12.2018 but on the same day it was admitted, heard and was finally disposed of.
Judicial or a quasi judicial discharge of function warrants the minimum compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is totally an unfortunate state of affairs at the end of the concerned Sessions Judge, Basti that he has not only admitted the revision petition when it was presented but on the same day he heard and disposed it of. This Court takes judicial notice of such gross impropriety by a judicial officer of the sub-ordinate court.
Further the Court finds that the entire judgement proceeds on the sole argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant and the Court has not endeavoured to even summon the lower Court records so that at least the facts from the records could be verified. Such approach and practice is therefore, reprimanded and it is expected that the judicial officers will take good care and caution while dealing with judicial discharge of function.
Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti and also the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the S.D.M., Rudhauli.
The matter is remitted to the Court below.
Notices will be issued to the parties and the court below shall proceed with the matter afresh looking to the facts and records of the lower Court. The Court below shall comply with the principles that are required for a proper administration of justice and shall dispose of the revision on merits within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019 P Kesari
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Jaisram vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 January, 2019
Judges
  • Ajit Kumar
Advocates
  • Bipin Kumar Tripathi Vipin Kumar Dwivedi