Partly allowed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet in a case relating to the Excise and Remissions Act, the High Court of Allahabad refused the prayer as disputes pertain to questions of fact. However, the Court directed the lower court to expedite the applicant's bail application if surrendered within 30 days and prohibited coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash was refused. A direction was issued to dispose of the bail application within 30 days of surrender, and coercive action was stayed for that period.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 998 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chakshuvendra Pachauri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.6.2019 arising out of case crime no. 88 of 2019 (State Vs. Mahendra Kumar (Fair Price Shop Dealer), under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, district Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant earlier approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR and arrest of the applicant was stayed till submission of charge sheet. It is further argued that charge sheet was submitted in the present matter on the basis of insufficient evidence. None of the villager has given statement against the applicant. Offence under Section 3/7 E.C. Act is not attracted in the present matter.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and argued that in the Forensic Science Laboratory examination reportedly water was found mixed with the Kerosene oil. Thus there is violation of control order.

¶10

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para 10) 2005 SCC (Cr. ) 283. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶12

Hence it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.2.2020

¶14

Sachdeva

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amlendu Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsaran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaynendra Varshney and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Gopal Das Gupta Alias Gopal Das Vs State of U.P.