Dismissed

Vahida and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2022/391/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was dismissed. upheld both of the trial court orders rejected the applications for summoning additional accused persons as there was insufficient evidence apart from the defence statements of the revisionists and the deceased witness ons to initiate additional trial. The ＃High Court found no error of law or jurisdiction. The plea lacked merit. The order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Applications for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused were rejected.

Vahida and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 391 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Vahida And Another

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 10.7.2019 and 17.8.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Session Trial No.506 of 2012 rejecting the two applications filed on behalf of the witness, P.W.-2 as well as by the revisionist, Javed Mirja.

¶8

The trial court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the revisionist, Javed Mirja on the ground that except for his statement which would be his self-defence, there was nothing on record, which would suggest that the other persons, who have been named in the application, have committed the offence and their trial would be necessary as additional accused along with the accused. P.W.-2 is none other than the mother of the revisionist, Javed Mirja and she has supported the stand of the accused and on that basis, she has filed an application for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused.

¶9

This Court has considered the two orders passed by the court below and does not find that there is any error of law or jurisdiction, which has been committed by the trial court concerned. On the basis of the statement of the accused, which is his defence, no additional accused can be summoned. Except the statements of P.W.-2, mother of the revisionist, and revisionist, Javed Mirja, there is nothing on record which would

¶10

suggest that opposite party nos.2 to 7 have committed the offence. In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere with the two orders passed by the trial court concerned.

¶11

Thus, revision being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby

¶12

dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.7.2022 Rao/-

¶14

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.07.27 18:35:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vahida and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vahida and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Vivek Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Sec Home Civil Secy and Another

Umesh Chandra @ Pullu Tiwari and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Ram Shakal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. and Another

Rakesh Chandra Vs State of U.P and 4 Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Taukeer Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secrt. Lko and Another