Allahabad High Court
Krishana Gopal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 June, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1748 of 2016
Revisionist :- Krishana Gopal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by learned A.C.J.M-I, Basti, in Criminal Case No. 1025-A of 2008 - (Case Crime No. 422 of 2007), (State Vs. Krishna Gopal) under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C, whereby his application dated 19.01.2009 was dismissed whereby it was prayed by the revisionist that he may be discharged from the charges as he has been falsely implicated.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
An F.I.R was registered after the order of Magistrate upon the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C in Case Crime No. 422 of 2007. After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted dated 31.03.2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. The revisionist moved an application before this High Court and Criminal Misc. Application No. 35455 of 2008 (Krishna Gopal Vs. State of U.P & another), vide order dated 19th December, 2008, this court disposed off the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C, however it was observed that revisionist got a right of the discharge under Sections 239 or227/228 Cr.P.C and he can take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. It was also directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below with a period of 30 days from the date of order and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Juges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P, reported in 2004 (57) ALR - 290, after hearing the public prosecutor.
Consequently, the revisionist moved an application for discharge, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Court of learned A.C.J.M, did not considered the evidence produced in support of charge-sheet rather has cryptically observed that prima facie evidence is sufficient upon the record. It is also observed by the learned A.C.J.M. that even on the basis of strong suspicion charge can be framed, but the learned Magistrate did not give any reason as to what are the prima facie evidence against the revisionist and on what ground charges are not ground-less.
From the statements of complainant, B.S.A, son of complainant - namely Sanjai Chaudhary and statement of teacher / peon prima facie it can be inferred that there is no clear-cut evidence whether the alleged M.R. was submitted by the revisionist. In the context, the matter requires re-consideration.
Admit.
Issue notice.
Summon the original lower court record.
Objection / Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by the opposite party within four weeks after the service upon opposite party no. 2.
Meanwhile the proceedings pending before the lower court concerned shall remain stayed, till disposal of this revision.
List immediately after the court record is received.
Order Date :- 09.06.2016.
Vinod.
