Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 554 of 2018 Revisionist :- Yashbir Sandhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anant Vijay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Anant Vijay, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the CBI, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The present Crl. Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Agra in Session Trial No.538 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Udai Swaroop and another) under section 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra by which the the discharge application of the revisionist under sections 302, 201, 34 IPC has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there appears to be no evidence against the revisionist and he has already got himself bailed out from the competent court and the learned trial court had committed error in rejecting his discharge application and his trial is wholly unwarranted.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned order and stated that the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected and the trial is in progress. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order and the revision may be dismissed. He has also pointed out that the co-accused Uday Swarup is already in jail who is main accused and his bail application no. 19893 of 2016 (Uday Swarup vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) has been rejected by this Court on 28.5.2018.
We have gone through the revision along with the affidavit filed in support of this revision as well as the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge and find that the same does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error requiring any interference by this court. The quashing of the same is refused. We find no merit in the present revision as such while dismissing the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, we dismiss the present revision against the impugned order.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the present case expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2018 AU