Allahabad High Court
Gaya Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1247 of 2021
Applicant :- Gaya Bahadur Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Shrivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
By means of present petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Revision No.43 of 2018 Gaya Bahadur Singh versus State of U.P. and another, pending before District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh be expedited.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner lodged first information report No.85 of 2015 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Baghrai, district Pratapgarh. A final report was submitted by the investigating officer under section 173(2) CrP.C. The protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.12.2017 by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh. Challenging order dated 21.12.2017, the petitioner filed a criminal revision No.42 of 2018 before the District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The revisional court while admitting the revision issued notice of appearance to private respondent.
It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the respondent No.2 is a prospective accused and at this stage, he has no indefeasible right of being given an audience. The notice was sent several times through Registered post by the revisional court, however, service was not presumed to be sufficient on respondent No.2 which is contrary to Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Learned counsel has relied on judgments in Harihar Banerjee and others verus Ramshashi Roy and others AIR 1918 PC 102 in context of presumption of service by Registered Post where it was held that there can be a presumption of receipt of a letter sent under postal certificate in view of the provisions of Section 114(f) of Indian Evidence Act which provides that the court may presume that the common course of business had been followed in particular cases. This judgment has been re-affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji versus Palapetty Muhammed and another (2007)6 SCC 555.
Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in another case reported in (1989)1 SCC 264 M/s Madan & Co. versus Wazir Jaivir Chand.
It is thus contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite several steps having been taken by the petitioner for service of notice on the private respondent, the revisional court has not deemed it sufficient service. The order-sheet of criminal revision is on record. He submits that the pendency of the criminal revision for such a long period is detrimental to the course of justice. The parties to criminal revision have no inherent right of being heard under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Attention of this court has been invited towards Section 403 CrPC. The respondent No.2 is a government servant and is posted as Deputy Director of Education at Allahabad.
Learned Additional Government Advocate agrees that the criminal revision should not be kept pending for such a long period, even after issuing notice to respondent No.2 several times.
Considering the arguments of the parties' counsel and legal proposition, coupled with the material on record, I am of the view that the criminal revision, pending for the last about three years, may be disposed of expeditiously, without any further delay.
Accordingly, it is directed that the learned revisional court shall decide the criminal revision No.43 of 2018 (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the present order. The notice of revision shall be published in two local daily of district Allahabad where the respondent No.2 is posted. The petitioner shall also be permitted to serve dasti notice to respondent No.2, apart from regular mode of service of notice. In case even after service of notice by the petitioner on the respondent No.2 and/or through publication, aforesaid, respondent No.2 does not appear, the revisional court shall decide the revision on its own merit without waiting for the respondent No.2 to appear.
The revision is disposed of, with above direction(s).
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
kkb/
