Disposed

Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019A482/15827/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court directed the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahoba, to conclude the pending session trial and framing of charges against the applicant under the Explosive Substance Act within six months, directing no unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Sessions Judge to conclude the session trial within six months.

Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15827 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Satyendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.05.2007 of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahoba passed in Session Trial No. 41 of 2006 (State Vs. Mahesh Chandra) framing charge against the applicant under sections 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and further be be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

During the course of argument learned counsel for applicant has confined his prayer to this effect to direct the court below to consider and conclude the aforesaid case pending before Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahoba, expeditiously, preferably within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel on behalf of applicant is that the applicant is a licence holder of explosive magazine and his licence is valid till March, 2005. The explosive substance recovered from the possession of applicant has been released in favour of the applicant and he is already on bail.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material on record, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending which is finally disposed off with a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahoba to consider and conclude the Session Trial No. 41 of 2006 (State Vs. Mahesh Chandra) framing charge against the applicant under sections 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, most expeditiously, if already not decided, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, provided the proceedings are not stayed by any Court of law.

¶10

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Arti

Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandra Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Vijendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudadhu Lal Vs State of Up and Anr.