Allowed

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018CRLR/1901/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1901 of 2017, the High Court Bench held that a lower court order denying the release of seized iron rods was erroneous because the accused had been acquitted and no appeal was filed by the informant. The court quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.4.2017 is quashed; the matter is remanded to release the property after an application is considered afresh.

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1901 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Umesh Chandra Mishra & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

As per office report dated 8.10.2018, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 but the same has not been received back after service. Therefore, service of notice is deemed to be sufficient.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that Case Crime No. 24 of 1997, under Sections 406, 420, 411 I.P.C. has been filed against revisionist no. 2 in which acquittal order was passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 29.6.2016. He further submits that after acquittal order, revisionist no. 1 has moved an application before A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat for release of iron rods, which was rejected by order dated 22.4.2017 on the ground that though revisionist no. 2 was acquitted vide order dated 29.6.2016, but an opportunity should be given to informant Sameer Jain to file an appeal. Learned counsel for the revisionists has specifically stated in para 11 of the affidavit that according to his best information, no appeal has been filed by opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the iron rods are seized in 1997 and is under custody of SHO, Shivrajpur, Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

I have perused the order dated 29.6.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. The court below has acquitted the revisionist no. 2 in Case Crime No. 24 of 1997, under Sections 406, 420, 411 I.P.C., therefore, there is no logic in the order dated 22.4.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat in rejecting the release application of revisionist no. 1 on the ground to provide opportunity to informant, Sameer Jain to file appeal. In fact, order of A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat dated 22.4.2017 absolutely suffers from non application of mind.

¶9

Therefore, order dated 22.4.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Case No. 22 of 2016 (State Vs. Naresh Mishra), arising out of case crime no. 24 of 1997,

¶10

under Sections 420, 406, 411 I.P.C. is hereby quashed and the revision is allowed .

¶11

The matter is remanded back to A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat with a direction to decide the application of revisionists afresh within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.11.2018 Arvind

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Dodwal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gulzar Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Nayak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mast Charan and Others Vs State

Smt. Chaman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others