Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 325 of 2014 Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kundan Rai,Kamal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
(Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 240942 of 2014)
This delay condonation application has been filed to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the present criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that earlier the applicant has approached to the wrong forum by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17059 of 2013 and as such, the delay in question has occurred.
For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Criminal Revision, the delay condonation application is allowed and the Criminal Revision is treated to have been filed well within time.
(Order on Criminal Revision).
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 13.3.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3743 of 2012 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Rai) arising out of N.C.
R. No. 120 of 2012, P.S. Kotawali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar whereby application of the revisionist to discharge him has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without appreciating the material available on record, which is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-
"..............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter."
Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the courts below. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below.
In result, this criminal revision, stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Jaswant