Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Than Singh vs State Of U P And Anr

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|18 December, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4469 of 2018 Revisionist :- Than Singh (Ex-Pradhan) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.R.Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present crl. revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2018, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No.1, Meerut in Special Criminal Case No.48 of 2018 (State Vs. Than Singh), under Sections 406, 420, 504 I.P.C. and Section 8/9 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mogarra, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an FIR was against the revisionist by opp. party no.2 which was registered as Case Crime No.239 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8/9 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mogrra, District Meerut. After lodging of the said FIR, the statement of opp. party no.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day, i.e., 17.6.2018 and the revisionist was arrested on 17.6.2018 and Rs.1,49,500/- was shown to be recovered from his possession, however, the revisionist explained the source by which he was found to be in possession of the aforesaid amount but wrongly the charge sheet was submitted against him on 26.6.2018 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 411, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8/9 Prevention of Corruption Act. He next argued that the revisionist was the Ex-Pradhan of the village Mogarra and he was also elected as Director of Cooperative Societies Mogarra, District Mathura. The revisionist was also elected as the member of District Planning Committee in the year 2005 and officiated on the said post upto 2010.He argued that the applicant being a political figure raised his voice against the corrupt police officers and an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved in the year 2002 against Hari Ram Sharma, S.S.P., Police Mathura under Sections 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Farah, District Mathura which was treated as a complaint and the aid Hari Ram Sharma was summoned by the C.J.M., Mathura vide order dated 17.7.2002. Thereafter the said summoning order dated 17.7.2002 was challenged in Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.3154 of 2004, in which interim order was granted to him which was vacated later on and NBW was issued against him. The said Hari Ram Sharma concealed the fact regarding final decision of aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C.application at the time of filing of the criminal revision. He argued that the revisionist was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.27504 of 2018, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 (at page-51 & 52) of the revision and after releasing on bail, the revisionist moved an application for discharge in crime No.239 of 2018 and the learned court below wrongly rejected the discharge application of the revisionist without applying judicial mind, hence, the present revision.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and submitted that after the discharge application of the revisionist was rejected and the trial Court posted the matter for framing of charge and the revisionist did not appear before the trial Court and is avoiding the framing of charge and delaying the proceeding.
We have gone through the revision along with the affidavit filed in support of this revision as well as the impugned order 26.10.2018, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No.1, Meerut and the material brought on record, we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any, illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence requires no interference by this Court.
The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2018 NS
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

Than Singh vs State Of U P And Anr

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
18 December, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Arvind Agrawal