Surendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1790 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 376 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.S.Shukla
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,B. Nath
 

 
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

List is revised.

Counsel for the revisionist is not present.

Heard Sri B. Nath, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record..

This revision has been filed against the order dated 24.5.2001 and 31.5.2001 passed by learned Special Judge Ante Corruption (Central) Lucknow in case No. 7 of 1999 RC No. 42(A) of 1996 under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC  and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act with corresponding section 5(2), r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Special Judge concerned has framed the charges against the petitioners on 31.5.2001. The charge was read over and explain in Hindi, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial. Thereafter the revisionist filed the discharge application, the same was also rejected by learned Special Judge on 24.5.2001. The charge framed by the trial court against the revisionist  are self explanatory. There is no illegality in framing of the charge and there is no illegality in dismissing the discharge application filed by the revisionist, because on the basis of the allegation made against  the revisionist  prima facie offence under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC  and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act with corresponding section 5(2), 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are prima facie made out. There is no good ground to interfere in the impugned orders, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.5.2012

RPD