State Of U.P. vs Surendra Nath Dubey And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 105 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 105 ALL
Judgement Date : 2 January, 2023

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Surendra Nath Dubey And Others on 2 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2793 of 1986
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Surendra Nath Dubey And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- O.P.Misra,Ayub Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Present appeal under Section 378) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC') has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1986 passed by Special Judge, Bulandshahar in Special Case No.5 of 1981 whereby the learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced accused respondent Vinod Kumar under Section 465 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Accused respondent Vinod Kumar was further convicted for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Further direction was given that all the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The learned trial Court had acquitted accused respondents S.N. Dubey, M.L. Agarwal, M.D. Jain and Suraj Prakash for all offences whereas accused respondent Vinod Kumar was acquitted of offence under Section 120B read with Section 477A IPC and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the five accused respondents on or about 17.3.1974 dishonestly used a certain document as genuine with intent to cause damage by illegal means. The accused respondents have committed forgery and prepared forged documents in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy entered into between them. The offence was allegedly committed on 17.3.1974. 48 years have gone since the commission of offence. This Government Appeal remains pending for more than 36 years before this Court. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence, by the impugned well reasoned judgment and order had acquitted all the accused except for accused respondent Vinod Kumar and sentenced him accordingly as mentioned above.

4. I have gone through the trial Court record and also perused the impugned judgment.

5. Considering the limited scope of interference against judgment and order of acquittal as well as inordinate delay in prosecuting the appeal which has remained pending before this Court for 36 years, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and therefore, this Government Appeal fails and is hereby rejected.

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

Order Date :- 2.1.2023