Challenging the order passed by the revisional court the learned counsel for the revisionists placing reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai Mulji Bhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shailesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel and others reported in 2012 (10) SCC 517 contended that the revisional court could not have allowed the revision without issuing notice to the prospective accused. It has been contended that the revisional court acted in violation of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3554 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri B.L. Yadav for the opposite party no.2.
The facts, as they appear on record, are that the opposite party no.2 filed two complaints, which were numbered 3958 of 2010 and 3647 of 2011. Both these complaints were dismissed, under Section 203 Cr.P.C., by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh by a common order dated 25.05.2012. Against the order dated 25.05.2012, the opposite party no.2 filed a Revision No.470 of 2012 without impleading the prospective accused, namely, the revisionists as opposite parties. By order dated 22.09.2012 the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh allowed the Criminal Revision No.470 of 2012 and set aside the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case Nos.3958 of 2010 and 3647 of 2011 and remanded the matter back to the court below to pass a fresh order.
Challenging the order passed by the revisional court the learned counsel for the revisionists placing reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai Mulji Bhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shailesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel and others reported in 2012 (10) SCC 517 contended that the revisional court could not have allowed the revision without issuing notice to the prospective accused. It has been contended that the revisional court acted in violation of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the revisional court� passed the order without issuing notice to the prospective accused (the revisionists herein).
Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai Mulji Bhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shailesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel and others (Supra) the order dated 22.09.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.470 of 2012 is hereby set aside. The revisional court shall restore the revision to its original number and shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the prospective accused, in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The revision stands disposed of.�
Order Date :- 21.1.2013
AKShukla/-
Print Page
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3554 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri B.L. Yadav for the opposite party no.2.
The facts, as they appear on record, are that the opposite party no.2 filed two complaints, which were numbered 3958 of 2010 and 3647 of 2011. Both these complaints were dismissed, under Section 203 Cr.P.C., by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh by a common order dated 25.05.2012. Against the order dated 25.05.2012, the opposite party no.2 filed a Revision No.470 of 2012 without impleading the prospective accused, namely, the revisionists as opposite parties. By order dated 22.09.2012 the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh allowed the Criminal Revision No.470 of 2012 and set aside the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case Nos.3958 of 2010 and 3647 of 2011 and remanded the matter back to the court below to pass a fresh order.
Challenging the order passed by the revisional court the learned counsel for the revisionists placing reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai Mulji Bhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shailesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel and others reported in 2012 (10) SCC 517 contended that the revisional court could not have allowed the revision without issuing notice to the prospective accused. It has been contended that the revisional court acted in violation of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the revisional court� passed the order without issuing notice to the prospective accused (the revisionists herein).
Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manhari Bhai Mulji Bhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shailesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel and others (Supra) the order dated 22.09.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.470 of 2012 is hereby set aside. The revisional court shall restore the revision to its original number and shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the prospective accused, in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The revision stands disposed of.�
Order Date :- 21.1.2013
AKShukla/-
No comments:
Post a Comment