Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manju Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 226 of 2022
Revisionist :- Smt. Manju Dubey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anjani Kumar Dvivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2022 : Application for Condonation of Delay)
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferring the instant criminal revision.
Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Dvivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist/ applicant, Ms. Divya Verma, learned counsel for the State and perused the entire record.
Office report reveals that there is a delay of 141 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.
Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist/ applicant and upon perusal of averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in preferring the instant criminal revision is hereby condoned.
(Order on revision)
Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Divya Verma, learned counsel for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.3, Lucknow whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case as the first information report has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has very fairly submitted that he would not impugned the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.3, Lucknow, in case, the application for bail of the revisionist is considered by the learned trial court, in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2022. However, she has fairly submitted that it is otherwise open to the accused/ revisionist to appear before the learned trial court and seek bail, in accordance with.
It is also pertinent to mention that at the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial.
To substantiate aforesaid proposition, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath Thapa and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 and Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1963 may be usefully referred to.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, at this stage, only prima facie availability of material warranting framing of charge against the revisionist is enough and no roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the prosecution's case.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
It is needless to mention that if the revisionist appears before the court below and applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal revision lacks merit which deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
cks/-
