Om Prakash vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 10864 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Om Prakash vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 19 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:168927
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6709 of 2024   
 
   Om Prakash    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 7 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Ram Sanehi Yadav, Sidh Nath Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 93
 
   
 
 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 8, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-II, Hathras in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022 in Case Crime No. 378 of 2005, under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandra Rao, District-Hathras, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958, to opposite party nos. 2 to 8 of the revision.

3. A bare reading of the judgement and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-II, Hathras dated 22.05.2024 reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-II, Hathras in paragraph 47 has held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons, under Sections 147, 323 and 506 I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 378 of 2005 and then affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 08.04.2022. However, immediately thereafter in next lines, set aside the order dated 08.04.2022 in respect of Section 506 I.P.C. and thereafter affirmed the conviction in respect of the same Section i.e. 506 I.P.C. against the accused persons namely, Nirottam Singh, Manji, Gautam, Dorilal, Mitthu, Swatantrapal and Sanjay. The said order dated 22.05.2024 was passed in the forenoon and kept the case to be heard on the quantum of punishment in the afternoon and in the afternoon the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Hathras set aside the order on quantum of punishment in respect of sections 147, 323 and 506 I.P.C and thereafter modified the quantum of punishment in respect of Sections 147, 323 and 506 I.P.C and modified the sentence by extending the benefit of Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958 to all opposite parties, i.e. 2 to 8.

4. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Hathras on the face of it, is contrary and not in the spirit of procedure and law and it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Hathras was trying the case at the initial stage of trial and heard the same separately, first on merits and in the afternoon on quantum of sentence, as the accused persons were being tried for the first time, though the accused persons were also tried by learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of Case Crime No. 378 of 2005 and order on sentence was already passed.

5. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-II, Hathras is directed to furnish an explanation, as to how and under what circumstances, the said order dated 22.05.2024 has been passed contrary to the criminal procedure. The said explanation be transmitted before this Court within 15 days from today.

6. List this case as fresh on 13.10.2025 before appropriate Bench.

7. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is also directed to ensure that this order be communicated to the District Judge, Hathras, and the officer concerned for necessary compliance.

(Harvir Singh,J.)

September 19, 2025

Faridul