Special Judge (Criminal Revision) dismissed the revision filed by Sunil Kumar Sonkar against the discharge order in a corruption case involving recovery of cash. The single judge quashed the revision as it was not pursued.
The criminal revision filed against the discharge order is dismissed.
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. - 19
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 470 of 2012
Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nandit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Case is called out.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow in Criminal No.15 of 2007 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arisen out of Case Crime No.310 of 2006, Police Station- Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur.
As the Criminal revision is pending since 2012, it is evident that the case was listed on 23.12.2012 first time and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant following order was passed:-
"List in the month of January, 2013, as prayed."
Order sheet also reveals that on 2.8.2013 and 4.9.2013, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel counsel for the revisionist, on 1.10.2013 order was passed by this Court for listing this case in due course, therefore, it is evident from the record that neither the revision is admitted nor it is being pursued by the revisionist, therefore, the same is being decided in absence of learned counsel for the revisionist.
As it is evident from the record that the present revision is filed against the discharge order passed by the learned court below, as it is also evident from the impugned order that revisionist was trapped with a cash of Rs.6,000/- by the officials of Anti Corruption Organization and thereafter, case was registered and charge-sheet was filed as the ground taken by the revisionist that the police officials has not acted legally in accordance with law, therefore, he is liable to be discharged.
Mr. Rejeev Verma, learned A.G.A. submits that as the revisionist was trapped by the team of police officials headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police and cash of Rs.6,000/- was
recovered and thereafter, recovery memo was prepared, later on case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed, revisionist is not entitled to discharge on the ground that Investigating Officer committed some error.
Considering the submissions of learned A.G.A. and going through the impugned order, it is evident that revisionist is taken into custody, when he was taking bribe of Rs.6,000/-, by the team of police officials of Anti Corruption Organization headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police and recovery memo was prepared and thereafter charge sheet was filed, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.
With these observations, the present criminal revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 2.11.2022 Gaurav/-
Digitally signed by GAURAV PAL Date: 2022.11.10 11:54:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the crminal revision against the discharge order of the Special Judge should be allowed.
Whether the revisionist is entitled to discharge on the ground that the police officials committed errors during investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Sonkar
State of U.P.
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
