Khaleeq Ahmed And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 19689 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Khaleeq Ahmed And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97895
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4162 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Khaleeq Ahmed And 13 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ratish Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. R.K.S. Baghel, the learned counsel for revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2022 (State Vs. Khaleeq Ahmed and Others), whereby aforementioned criminal appeal has been allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.05.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate-II in Case No. 3939 of 2021 (State Khaleeq Ahmed and Others) has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the order impugned is an order of remand. As such, no final adjudication has been made by Court below by means of the order impugned. Referring to paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned order, the learned A.G.A. submits that the order of remand passed by Court below cannot be said to be vague nor it can be said that it has been passed only to fill in the lacuna in evidence. To the contrary, the order of remand has been passed so that a free and fair trial is conducted by the Trial Court. The Court below has further observed that the accused are alleged to have embezzled the deposits made by poor persons, therefore, Trial Court shall have been more diligent to get the witnesses summoned. However, instead of exercising it's jurisdiction diligently, the Court below in exercise of it's jurisdiction in a casual and cavalier fashion has conducted the trial by closing the prosecution evidence. On the above conspectus, the A.G.A. contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is not liable to be interfered with.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist. Furthermore, upon perusal of the order impugned, this Court does finds that Court below has neither committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.

7. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

Vinay