Criminal Revision dismissed against a Special Judge's acceptance of a Final Report. The Court held that evidence foreign to the case diary does not warrant overturning the impugned order.
Revision dismissed in limine.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 375 of 2004
Revisionist :- Krishna Nand Dikshit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Swarup Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No-one appears on behalf of revisionist. Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA, appearing on behalf of State is present.
This revision was filed on 4.2.2004. It came up before the Court on 6.2.2004 and 3.3.2004 but on both the dates the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the revisionist with no-one supporting motion to admit the revision to hearing.
This criminal revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Special Judge (dacoity affected areas) Kanpur Dehat in case no.71/12 of 2003 (Krashna Nand Dixit Vs. Shanti Kumar and others) accepting final report dated 29.10.2003 put in by the police in case crime no.156 of 2003, under Section 395 IPC, P.S. Derapur, Kanpur Dehat, District Kanpur.
The impugned order is a brief order which says "Heard Final report accepted consigned". A perusal of the grounds of revision and the documents annexed together with the affidavit in support of this revision shows that the revisionist seeks to assail the impugned order on ground that the I.O. did not record statements of witnesses that were later-on filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police by a number of them, copies of which are annexed as Annexure 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the affidavit.
The grievance further, is that the I.O. did not record the statements of witnesses supporting the applicant, who is the complainant. There is an allegation of collusion between the accused and the police.
A perusal of the grounds of revision does not disclose it to be the applicant's case that any material available in the case diary discloses a case against the applicant of which the Court has refused to take cognizance. The grounds in revision speaking abundance about affidavits that are foreign to the case diary, and submitted before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In a situation of this kind, it cannot be said that the learned Special Judge has erred in accepting the Final Report. Of course, it is and is always open to the complainant/opposite party to move
the Court through the procedure of a complaint on the basis of evidence that they have in their position, but for the non consideration of evidence that is foreign to the case diary, the impugned order cannot be faulted.
In the result, this revision fails and is, dismissed in limine. Order Date :- 5.1.2019 Neeraj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Special Judge erred in accepting the Final Report despite alleged non-recording of witness statements by the I.O.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Nand Dikshit
State Of U.P.
S. K. Mishra, J.
J.J. Munir, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
