Disposed

Bhullar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2023/51/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition regarding possession of woods from a Neem tree and the procedure for its release in Sultanpur was disposed of without a decision on merits, directing parties to appear for a hearing in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate for hearing; possession of wood tree not disturbed till disposal after hearing both parties.

Bhullar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50427

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 51 of 2019

¶4

Revisionist :- Bhullar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Sri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 are present.

¶7

The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 IPC is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2017; Ram Karan Vs. State of U.P. and others; arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2017, under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC and Section 4/10 of Forest Protection Act, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had lodged the FIR against the accused persons for cutting his Neem, as such the opposite party no. 2 is assaulting the revisionist in the instant case. The police had taken into custody the woods of Neem tree which was later on released in favour of the revisionist vide order of the learned CJM, Sultanpur dated 09.11.2017. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 challenged the order dated 09.11.2017 by way of revision and there was a direction to decide the application for release after hearing both the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate without considering his contentions, released the woods of Neem tree in favour of the revisionist.

¶10

I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

From perusal of the record, it transpires that initially the woods of Neem tree was released in favour of the revisionist and by means of impugned order dated 24.11.2018, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur directed the Judicial Magistrate to decide the release application after affording the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It also transpires from the ordersheet filed by the revisionist with rejoinder affidavit to the counter

¶12

affidavit as Annexure No. RA-1 that vide order dated 06.01.2020, the trial court directed the revisionist to deposit the woods of Neem in question as revisionist was not appearing in trial court. Learned counsel has submitted that by means of order dated 06.01.2020, the revisionist is directed to deposit the woods of Neem, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

It appears that revisionist did not appear in trial court as per direction of court to get decide the release application on merit. Hence by impugned order, the court directed him to deposit wood of Nee in court.

¶14

Accordingly, the revisionist as well as opposite party no. 2 are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for hearing.

¶15

With the above discussions, the present revision is disposed of finally.

¶16

Till disposal of the application for release, after hearing both the parties, the possession of the woods tree will not be disturbed.

¶17

Order Date :- 31.7.2023 kkv/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhullar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhullar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Yakoob Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishore Thru. Father Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam Nishad Thru. His Mother Smt. Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Harnam @ Harinam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.