Disposed

Ram Charan Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022A482/14176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a corruption trial. Noting the availability of the FIR, case diary, and witness statement, and acknowledging the applicant’s withdrawal of plea for quashing, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial by fixing dates of five days or less. The trial is to be concluded strictly under Section 309 Cr.P.C. invoking preceden

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to trial court to fix dates not exceeding five days for expedited conclusion of trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C.; prosecution directed to ensure witness availability.

Ram Charan Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14176 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Charan Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Dwivedi,Amit Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶7

On 10.06.2022 the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

¶8

"This is Special Session Trial No. 35 of 1994, State Vs. Ramchar and two others, under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur.

¶9

While disposing of the 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 5551 of 1997 on 13.08.2010, the coordinate Bench of this Court has directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within one year thereafter yet another 482 Cr.P.C. application was filed as Application 482 No. 46731 of 2019 whereby further six monhts time was granted to the court concerned conclude the trial.

¶10

Learned coounsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-7 to the affidavit whereby the Court after recording its anguish and concern has directed S.P., U.P. Vigilance, District Gorakhpur by giving last opportunity and waring to provide all necessary material on record, this letter itself is of 31.01.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has submits that despite of teh repeated directions from this Court no action has been taken in the matter and the trial is yet to see his final day.

¶11

Under the circumstances, Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.1, Gorakhpur is directed to give written explanation mention that (i) why and under what circumstances, the directions of the Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, (ii) who is the person or institution is causing and creating hinderance in strict compliance of the order and (iii) what action has been taken by the concerned court against the person and what more time is required by the court concerned to conclude the trial of the applicant.

¶12

Let notice may be issued to concerned court to give written explanation within next four weeks in a sealed cover to this Court.

¶13

Put up this mater as fresh on 18.07.2022 along with the report of court concerned."

¶14

In compliance of the said order, a report dated 04.07.2022 of the trial court duly forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur has been sent which is on record and has been perused by this Court.

¶15

From perusal of the same, it transpires that on 24.06.2022 a carbon copy of the First Information Report and the original case diary have been filed before the trial court after which PW1 has been summoned and 08.07.2022 was fixed as the next date for his evidence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage in all fairness states that although the prayer in the present petition is of quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 35/1994 but looking to the further developments particularly regarding the availability of the case diary and the FIR and also the fact that the statement of PW-1 has been recorded before the trial and since no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending hence the same be disposed of by again giving directions to the trial court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, as this Court deems fit.

¶17

In these circumstances, looking to the prayer as made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the trial court is again directed to expedite the trial by fixing dates of not more than five days before it. Learned counsel for the prosecution to ensure that the witnesses are available for recording of their testimonies before the trial court.

¶18

It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655 ; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.

¶19

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Order Date :- 25.7.2022 M. ARIF

¶20

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.07.26 09:52:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Charan Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Ram Vs State of U.P.

Rama Shanker and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Vishambhar Nath Vs State of U.P.

Jaibir Vs State of U.P.