Shiv Narain vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 978 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 978 ALL
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Shiv Narain vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 27 April, 2012

Bench: Ramesh Sinha




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3110 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Narain
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rishikesh Tripathi
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Arya
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the revisionist, is taken on record.

In pursuance of the order passed on 10.8.2010, notice was issued to opposite party no.2 though an appearance has been filed by Sri A.K. Arya, Advocate, on behalf of opposite party no.2, he is not present when the case called out in the revised list.

Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act, Banda in Special Case No. 1 of 2001, State Versus Binda Prasad by which the application filed by the revisionist to alter the charge against the accused opposite party no.2 and under Sections 13, Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 504, 506, I.P.C., has been rejected.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that though there are allegations in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant and his witness that offence under Section 504, 506, I.P.C. is made out but the trial court has rejected the application on erroneous consideration, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that the order passed by the trial court is in consonance with law, hence no interference is required by this Court.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court while passing the impugned order, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or impropriety, hence the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

It is needless to say that the charges can be altered at any stage, if there is evidence against a person facing trial.

Order Date :- 27.4.2012

Shiraz