Dismissed

Chandraprakash v. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application against a Magistrate for non-compliance with a direction to conclude a theft trial within six months. The Magistrate showed 43 witnesses were yet to be produced by the Railway Protection Force despite his efforts. Holding RPF officers responsible for producing witnesses, the Court found no willful contempt and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandraprakash Vs Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45378

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 671 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandraprakash Opposite Party :- Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Singh,Faizal Hashmi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Shishir Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

¶7

Present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the opposite party for willful and deliberate contempt of order dated 29.05.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 483 No.318 of 2023; Chandraprakash Vs. Union of India.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial of the complaint case no.1708/2021 was not going on, thereafter, application under Section 483 No.318/2023 was filed for expedite disposal of the aforesaid complaint which was allowed on 24.05.2023 with the direction to the trial court to conclude trial of the aforesaid complaint within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of that order if there is no legal impediment but till date, trial has not been concluded.

¶9

Shri Sishir Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party places written instruction and submits that 43 witnesses were to be examined before the trial court as list of 43 witnesses is given by the prosecution along with 179 documentary evidences and Presiding Officer is doing his best for conclusion of trial of the complaint case but the witnesses are not being produced by the Railway Protection Force (for short "RPF").

¶10

Considering submission of learned counsel for the parties, going through the content of present application as well as written instruction placed before this Court, it is evident that it is a case of theft of the diesel from the premises of Railway Diesel Shed and it is obligatory on the part of officers of RPF to produce witnesses before the trial court, therefore, no contempt is made out against the opposite party.

¶11

Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Consigned to record.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 V. Sinha

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandraprakash v. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandraprakash v. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhevendra Singh Vs Sri Ashok Kumar, Aqgarwal, Engineer in Chief Parkalp/Niyojan Public Works Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Naseem Uddin Vs Kunal Silku, Dir. Training and Employment U.P. Lko. and Another

Mansoor Ahamad @ Masroor Ahamad Vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate, Rae Bareli

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Karm Ruchi Singh Somvanshi Vs Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi

Hamid Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.