Dismissed

Laxmi Narayan Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023A482/27920/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to challenge the rejection of delay condonation and recall applications. The state argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear recall under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and counsel's repeated absence justified the rejections.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; impugned orders regarding rejection of delay condonation and recall were maintained.

Laxmi Narayan Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27920 of 2022 Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 24.9.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagina, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5 of 2020 (Laxmi Nayayan Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of order dated 27.9.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina Bijnor in Case No. 255 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Sahu), under Sections 420, 389 IPC, P.S. Nagina, District Bijnor, whereby Court below has rejected the delay condonation application and also the order dated 20.4.2020, whereby the recall application filed by applicant seeking recall of order dated 24.9.2020 has also been rejected.

¶5

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that by virtue of provisions contained under Section 362 Cr. P. C., Court below has no jurisdiction to hear the recall application.

¶6

It is then contended that the criminal revision against the order dated 27.9.2020 was filed by counsel through counsel and as the counsel failed to appear repeatedly, the delay condonation application was rejected.

¶7

Perusal of order dated 24.9.2020 will go to show that repeatedly default was committed on behalf of revisionist in appearing before Court below.

¶8

He further submits that in view of above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the impugned order.

¶9

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶10

As a result, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.1.2023/HSM

¶13

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmi Narayan Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narayan Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nischay Rana Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanchan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalua and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another