Criminal revision filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. challenging an order releasing disputed property to petitioners. Court examined procedural defects regarding absent revisionists and merit of the appeal, ultimately finding no irregularity.
Criminal revision dismissed; stay order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 147 of 1996
Revisionist :- Smt. Rudra Mati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised.
As per report dated 14.02.2019 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, revisionist no. 1, Smt. Rudra Mati, and revisionist no. 2, Krishna Gopal, have died on 09.05.2013 and 08.12.2014 respectively.
In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
The revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.1996 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 1994 (Sushila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others), under Section 145 Cr.P.C., whereby allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 02.02.1994 passed by Additional Magistrate I, Basti in Case No. 19 of 1937, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (Sushila Devi Vs. Smt. Rudramati and Another), whereby releasing the disputed property in favour of the revisionists.
I have heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
Main ground of the revisionist is that revisionist no. 2 made an application before trial court got proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. started against the revisionists. That the disputed property admittedly belong to husband of revisionist no. 1 and to the father of revisionist no. 2. That title of the disputed property is admittedly in favour of the revisionist no. 2. That after death of Shanker Dayal Pandey, husband of revisionist no. 1 and father of revisionist no. 2, respondent no. 2, Smt. Sushila Devi, who
admittedly was a concubine of the deceased falsely started claiming that she lived alongwith deceased in the disputed property before his death, and therefore, she is entitled to the possession over the disputed property. That as the deceased Shanker Dayal Pandey was murdered and respondent no. 2 was a witness ini the trial, Magistrate has given a finding that during trial of the murder of Shanker Dayal Pandey, it is evident from the statement of Smt. Sushila DEvi that at the time of murder of Shanker Dayal Pandey, she was not present at the disputed property and was later called from her Maiyka. That revisional court has illegally upseted the finding of fact by the Magistrate and has in fact, acted as a fact finding court by evaluating the evidence on record. That lower court has not considered the material available on record, in these circumstances it was the duty of revisional court to remand the case for correct appraisal of the evidence but revisional court illegally imposed its opinion on the findings given by Magistrate. That revisional court order is against the principles of law, and therefore, liable to be set aside.
Having heard learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record shows that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order of revisional court. Revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and after full appreciation of fact, allowed the revision of opposite party no. 2 as well as set aside the order dated 02.02.1994. Hence, revision is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
On above terms, criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed .
Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
A copy of this order be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Vibha Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision filed against the trial court order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
(2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Rudra Mati and Another
State of U.P. and Others
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
