High Courts(1999) 09 AHC CK 0159

Chandra Mukhi vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 September 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C.Jain, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Revision No. 1559 of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 393 words

M. C. Jain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1State.

2.

The revisionist is the complainant in S.T. No. 474 of 1983 State v Jaipal under Section 302, IPC pending in the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. P.W. 1 Chandramukhi and P.W. 2 Khachor Singh were examined in the case wherein the name of opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh also figured as one of the culprits of the crime as the person who exhorted the main assailant Jaipal who murdered the deceasedRaghunath Singh. Thereafter, the State made an application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. to summon Sohan Singh also as coaccused. By order dated 1071984, the Court below allowed the said application made by the State under Section 319, Cr. P.C. Thereafter, it recalled the earlier order dated 1071984 by the impugned order dated 2371984 on the ground that the earlier order had been obtained by the Reader without hearing the parties'' counsel. The complainant has challenged this order dated 2371984 passed by the Court below.

3.

Once the order dated 1071984 had been passed, the same could not be recalled by the impugned order dated 2371984. It is also found that Sohan Singh opposite party No. 3 did figure as one of the coaccused with the role on exhortation having been assigned to him as per statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. In this view of the matter also, there could be no justification for recalling the order dated 1071984 by the impugned order dated 2371984, When the evidence had come to be there in the statements of the above named two witnesses against opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh, the Court could proceed against him as per provisions of Section 319, Cr PC. The order dated 2371984 passed by the Court below is patently illegal.

4.

The revision is allowed. The order dated 23784 in question is quashed. The earlier order dated 10784 passed by the Court below shall hold good and the sessions trial in question shall proceed further according to law. The stay order dated 281984 stands vacated. The trial being of year 1984, it shall be expedited by the Court below.

5.

The office shall send a copy of this order to the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh for needful action as per law.

Revision allowed.