Sri Kant vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15527 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sri Kant vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 May, 2024

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34617-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 7 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sri Kant
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
 

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the Review-applicant.

This application has been filed praying for review of our order dated 05.09.2023.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued on the merits of the case saying that the petitioner was not given any reason in the attachment order that was passed and since no reason was given he had no opportunity to submit his explanation to the District Magistrate as is provided under Section 15 (1) of the Act.

This Court has gone through the order dated 05.09.2023 which is noted the prayer clause made in the writ petition and also the fact that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an Application under Section 15 (1) of the Act before the Court concerned against an order of provisional attachment.

Now the counsel for the petitioner has sought to improve his case that was not argued before this Court on 05.09.2023 by making detailed arguments on the basis of a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.1180 of 2023 [Vajid Alias Sajid Vs. State of U.P. and others] decided on 16.02.2023 and it has been argued that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench was part of the record and it was Annexure No.4 to the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner and it ought to have been noticed by this Court while passing the order dated 05.09.2023.

This Court sitting in review has limited jurisdiction and no error apparent on the face of the record or any ground for interference could be pointed out even after detailed arguments being made by the counsel for the petitioner for almost twenty five Minutes.

A Review Application can be entertained only if an error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out. An error apparent on the face of the record is one which can be noticed by a bare perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, and which does not require long arguments to point out error of law.

The petitioner has already made his Representation under Section 15 (1) to the District Magistrate.

Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to consider the Representation made by the petitioner against the order of provisional attachment and to pass appropriate orders, if the same has not been already decided, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

Order Date :- 3.5.2024

N.PAL