Dismissed

Devanand Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2018CRLR/3327/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against an order rejecting an application to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality or jurisdictional error since the application was pending at the time, holding revision is unavailable until finality of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed as there is no ground to interfere with the order rejecting application to summon additional accused under Section 319.

Devanand Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3327 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Devanand Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2014 (State vs. Nirmal Katiyar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, police station Kamalganj, district Farrukhabad, whereby the application of the informant of the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the accused, Manvendra, Amit @ Rinku and Rohit Katiyaar for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, was rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that PW-1, Devanand (informant of the case) and PW-2, Shivanand have supported the prosecution version that deceased, Ramanand @ Ramu was seen in the company of Manvendra, Amit @ Rinku and Rohit Katiyaar and after that the dead body of Ramanand @ Ramu was recovered. Leanred counsel for the revisionist further contended that the trial court has passed the impugned order ignoring the statements of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the revision and contended that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by the learned court below.

¶9

From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that occurrence has taken place in presence of several persons. PW-1, Devenand and PW-2, Shivanand are not the eye-witnesses of the

¶10

occurrence. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence by now have not been examined in the present case. The witnesses of the occurrence may state before the court, the name of accused, who had committed the murder. In view of the above, I find no illegality, irregularity or legal infirmity in passing the impugned order by the learned court below.

¶11

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

¶12

It is open to the revisionist to take recourse of Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the examination of the eye-witnesses.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.5.2018

¶14

Sumaira

Devanand Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devanand Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.P. Nanda and Another Vs State

Dori Lal Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Vs State and Other

Gul Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Naresh Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Usman Ali Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Others