Atul Pradhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Atul Pradhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice issued to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks; proceedings of Case No./Trial No. 9002 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramautar and Others) stayed in respect of the revisionist alone till the next date of listing, without staying the trial in respect of other accused; matter to be listed after six weeks in top ten cases; final adjudication of the revision deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is made out against the revisionist, whose sole evidence before the trial court is that he acted as a mediator in the sale of articles allegedly looted by other accused, and whether his discharge application was rightly rejected.

Court's answer

Prima facie, there is no evidence against the revisionist that he either received or retained the looted property; therefore, the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is not made out.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing the trial proceedings in Case No./Trial No. 9002 of 2018 are stayed in respect of the revisionist alone; this Court has not stayed the trial in respect of the other accused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 4100 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Manjive Shukla, J.), Order Date 10.1.2025. Revision by Atul Pradhan against the order dated 30.07.2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha in Case No. 9002 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramautar and Others), related to Case Crime No. 346 of 2018, whereby the revisionist's application for discharge from the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. was rejected. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the sole evidence against him before the trial court is that he was a mediator in the sale of the articles allegedly looted by other accused, and that Section 412 I.P.C. comes into play only when the looted property is received or retained by any person. The learned A.G.A. opposed the revision but could not satisfy the Court under what circumstances the offence was made out. Prima facie, the Court found no evidence that the revisionist either received or retained the looted property and held that the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. is not made out. Matter requires consideration; notice issued to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks; trial proceedings stayed in respect of the revisionist alone till the next date of listing, the trial of other accused not being stayed.

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4100 of 2024

Revisionist :- Atul Pradhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha in Case No. 9002 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramautar and Others) related to Case Crime No. 346 of 2018, whereby revisionist's application for discharge from the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. has been rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the sole evidence against the revisionist before the trial court is that he was a mediator in the sale of the articles which were allegedly looted by other accused. It has further been argued that Section 412 I.P.C. comes into play only when, the looted property is either received or retained by any person whereas in the present case, there is no evidence that the revisionist in any manner received or retained the looted property.

Learned A.G.A. though has opposed this revision but could not satisfy the Court as to when the evidence against the revisionist is that he was only a mediator of the sale and there is no evidence that he has either received or retained the looted property then under what circumstances, offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. is made out.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and prima-facie I find that there is no evidence against the revisionist that he either received or retained the looted property therefore, the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. is not made out.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within a period

of six weeks.

List after six weeks in top ten cases.

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the Case No./Trial No. 9002 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramautar and Others) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha, in respect of the revisionist alone, shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that this Court has not stayed the aforesaid trial in respect of other accused.

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 A. Mandhani

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad