Naseem Ahmed vs The State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1780 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 440 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- Naseem Ahmed
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Anand Mohan
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,Bireshwar Nath
 

 
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. Nath, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

This application has been filed with a prayer to recall the order dated 24.8.2009  passed by another bench of this court whereby the revision filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 24.8.2008 has been passed on the basis of the murder case of Pilibhit in which eight persons have been killed. This case is having no concerned with the case of Pilibhit, it has no concerned with the present case. This fact has been mentioned in the impugned order whereas it is a case of Gonda in which twelve persons have been killed, The order dated 24.8.2009 is having a factual mistake. therefore, the impugned order dated 24.8.2009 may be recalled.

After perusing the impugned order dated 24.8.2009  passed by another bench of this court (Hon. Alok K. Singh, J.)  it appears that the factual mistake about the place of the incident has been done by mentioning that it is a case of 'Pilibhit in which eight persons have been murdered' whereas this case is not having relationship with the case of pilibhit, it is a case of Gonda. The impugned order dated 24.8.2009 is having the factual mistake, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.8.2009 is hereby recalled and is being decided on merit.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2001 passed by Special Judge Anti Corruption (West), U.P. CBI, Lucknow by which the charges have been framed.

From the perusal of the impugned order dated 7.9.2001 it appears that charge has been framed against the revisionist, the trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge. After framing of charge the trial court is recording the evidence of witnesses. There is no illegality in the impugned order, it does not require any interference by this court, therefore, the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 7.9.2001 is refused.

However, it shall be open to the revisionist to move an application for altering the charge under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.5.2012

RPD