Dismissed

Gaurav Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023A482/3735/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order summoning the applicant as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court held that sufficient evidence existed against the applicant to justify the trial court's action.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the impugned order summoning the applicant was upheld.

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3735 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atipriya Gautam,Harsh Kumar Anand,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning the order dated 24th November, 2022 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Court No.1, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 248 of 2016 (State Vs. Udayraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2013 under Section 394/411 IPC and Section 13 (d) read with section 1(2) IPC, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

¶6

An application came to be filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor saying that in the aforesaid case in the FIR 3 persons were named. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, however, absolved the present applicant and the charge-sheet was filed against Udai Raj and another.

¶7

During the course of trial the prosecution had produced six witnesses and all these six witnesses had named the present applicant as one of the accused who had committed the crime, therefore, it was prayed that the present applicant should be summoned as an additional accused to face the trial along with the other accused.

¶8

The facts of the case are that the complainant Rishi Pal alleged in his complaint that the accused-applicant and Dharmraj who are police constable and one private person Udai Raj and Gaurav Yadav stopped the truck of the complainant and snatched Rs. 1,20,000/- from him. On the basis of this a Complaint Case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against Udai Raj, the present accused-applicant and one unknown person who was identified as Iqbal alias Sanno.

¶9

From the possession of Udai Raj Rs. 70,000/- were recovered whereas from the possession of the present accused-applicant Rs. 10,000/- was recovered.

¶10

The petitioner had taken the ground that during the course of investigation that he had withdrawn Rs. 6000/- from the ATM on the same day and he had borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from his friend and out of the said amount Rs. 1000/- was spent to purchase clothes and, therefore, the recovery from him was not bonafide.

¶11

Considering these facts the Investigating Officer did not find evidence for commission of the offence against the accusedapplicant. However, during the course of trial all the six witnesses have specifically named the accused-applicant as one of the coaccused who had caused the incident. Provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. would read as under:

¶12

"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

¶13

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶14

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

¶15

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶16

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-

¶17

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;

¶18

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

¶19

If during the course of trial its evidence comes against a person regarding his involvement in the commission of the offence, he is required to be summoned to face trial as an additional accused. In the present case all the six prosecution witnesses have specifically named the accused-applicant as one of the three accused who had committed the offence.

¶20

The learned trial court after considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record has allowed the

¶21

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 24th November, 2022 and has summoned the accused the accused application to face the trial for offences under Sections 394, 411 IPC and Section 13 B with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶22

This Court does not find that the trial court has committed any error of law and jurisdiction while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as there is more than sufficient evidence which would disclose that there is enough evidence which would disclose more than prima facie case against the accused-applicant.

¶23

Against the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., there is statutory remedy of revision, however, on merit also there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶24

The present petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 Kumar Manish.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Veer Singh Vs C.B.I.

Muqeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another