Dr. Abdul Hafeez Al Husaini vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) – II, District Lucknow in Criminal Case No.569 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.525 of 2000, under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 thereby rejecting the discharge application moved by the Revisionist.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

From perusal of the impugned order it is quite clear that the discharge application filed by the revisionist has not been dismissed on merits but it has been dismissed in default as counsel for the accused was not present when the discharge application was taken up. Even submissions of public prosecutors are not mentioned in the impugned order dated 31.01.2026. Case is presently fixed for framing of charge. It is stated in the impugned order that the incident occurred in year 2000.

¶12

The revisionist is facing the criminal trial on the basis of a First Information Report registered at Case Crime No.525 of 2000 said to have been lodged by one Vansh bahadur Rawat the then District Minority Welfare Officer, District - Sitapur on 18.02.2000 at 10:30 PM in P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, & 471 of Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act.

¶13

The above said First Information Report was lodged on the basis of

¶14

CRLR No. 236 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

enquiry report dated 18.03.2000 submitted by the enquiry - committee which was constituted comprising of Sri Ashok Nath Tiwari (District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur), Sri Vinod Kumar (District Social Welfare Officer, Sitapur), Shri Vansh Bahadur Rawat (District Minority Welfare officer, Sitapur) and Sri Ram chandra Vishwakarma (Finance & Accounts Officer, DRDA, Sitapur). The enquiry report shows that there was government order dated 30.03.1999 which provides that the drawing and disbursing officer at district level will produce the amount to be disbursed in the office of Account Officer and the amount would be released in favour of the beneficiaries.

¶17

He lastly submitted that charges against the revisionist are baseless as there is no supporting evidence against him in support of said charges. There is no evidence that he had deposited any amount in his own account. No expert opinion has been taken regarding his signature on concerned documents. There is no evidence that he had fabricated any document.

¶18

Prior to that the case was fixed in the Court of Special Judge (P.C.) Act VIIth and after transfer it was listed on 31.01.2026 in transferee Court.

¶19

Due to illness of learned counsel for the revisionist Shri R.P. Shukla with his junior counsel Shri Shrey Shukla moved an adjournment application before the Court below but same was not taken by the learned court below and court insisted for appearance of the counsel Shri R.P. Shukla who was not present in the Court on that day due to illness. Even after lunch break the prayer for adjournment was repeated but same was refused and the impugned order was passed.

¶20

Be that as it may.

¶21

Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, no useful purpose of law would be served to keep this revision pending. It is liable to be disposed of with certain directions.

¶22

I find that the impugned order is non speaking order. Even grounds taken in discharge application have not been mentioned or addressed. The order has been filed in default and not on merits, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Impugned order is set aside and matter is relegated to the court below with the direction that

¶23

CRLR No. 236 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

the discharge application filed by the revisionist may be taken up at the earliest as soon as copy of this order is produced before the court below and same may be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶26

With the aforesaid the revision stands disposed of .

¶27

February 26, 2026

¶28

mks

¶29

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Abdul Hafeez Al Husaini v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Abdul Hafeez Al Husaini v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sateesh Yadav @ Sateesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Chaudhary vs Akanksha Chaudhary

Amar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.