Allowed

Sunil Dutt v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2018CRLR/931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of an application for release of recovered stolen money. The Court quashed the impugned order for lack of hearing to the accused whose possession yielded the money and remanded the matter for fresh appreciation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.02.2016 set aside; trial court directed to pass fresh order within 60 days after hearing accused Dinesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar.

Sunil Dutt Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 931 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Sunil Dutt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Ashish Pandey,Devesh Vikram,Dinesh Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶6

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas) Court No. 3, Auraiya in Criminal Misc. Case No. 27 of 2016 (Sunil Dutt v. State), Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya, whereby application of the revisionist under Section 451 IPC for release of recovered stolen money amounting to Rs. 50,000/- was rejected on the ground that the recovered money is case property, which has to be produced before the court during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that there is no specification on the alleged recovered money, which would be identified during trial by the complainant-revisionist. Value of the alleged recovered money shall be reduced after trial. He further contended that the alleged stolen money was recovered on the same day from the possession of accused Dinesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar. Learned trial court has passed the impugned order without considering all the facts.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶9

From the perusal of impugned order, it appears that the order has been passed by the trial court without hearing accused Dinesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar, from the possession of whom the alleged recovery was made. In view of above, the order passed by the trial court is not sustainable.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed . Impugned order passed by the court below dated 29.02.2016 is hereby set aside. Learned trial court is directed to pass fresh order, within sixty days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, on the application of release of recovered money, after affording opportunity of hearing to the accused Dinesh Kumar and

¶11

Pramod Kumar and after considering the point whether there is any specification of the alleged money due to which production is necessary during trial.

¶12

Let a certified copy of this order be send to the court below for intimation and necessary compliance.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Sunil Dutt v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Dutt v. State of U.P.

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

Smt. Rajni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijnay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lallu Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Agarwal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others