Disposed

Mahesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2018A482/43149/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act arising from alleged sale of deficient goods. However, the applicant was granted a conditional stay allowing 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; provision made for bail application upon surrender within 30 days.

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43149 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 3.05.2017 and the cognizance order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya, Kushi Nagar in Case No. 1242 of 2017 (State Vs. Mahesh Prasad) arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2016, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushi Nagar.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no inspection made on 05.08.2016. The area Lekhpal Smt. Manisha Singh has falsely implicated the applicant in this case.

¶7

The F.I.R. version is that the accused applicant sold 45 sacks of grains and 1.50 quintal of sugar which were found deficient in his godown. Since the chargesheet has been submitted in this case after having found sufficient evidence on record, there is no ground to grant immediate relief to the accused applicant.

¶8

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶9

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. for a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.1.2018 A. Mandhani

Mahesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saira Khatoon and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Snt. Jehra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and Another