Jagga @ Jawahir Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

Jagga @ Jawahir Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Limited prayer allowed: trial court directed to summon the concerned official from the office of the District Magistrate (preferably custodian of special reports received from various police stations in the district) to prove the special report (paper No. 161 Ka); copy of the order to be attached to the summons and served through the District Magistrate with direction to appear on the date fixed; trial not to be halted and no adjournment admissible to any party on the official's appearance. Revisions disposed of finally.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting application no. 164 Kha, by which the revisionist sought summoning of an official of the office of the District Magistrate, Gonda to prove the special report placed on record as paper No. 161 Ka, so that it could be read in evidence.

Court's answer

For want of evidence of the official of the office of the District Magistrate, the special report placed on record as paper No. 161 Ka may not be read as evidence; the revisionist's purpose in summoning it was to indicate that the FIR in the case was anti-time.

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court shall summon the concerned official from the office of the District Magistrate, preferably the custodian of special reports received from various police stations in the district; a copy of the order shall be attached to the summons, served upon him through the District Magistrate, with direction to appear before the court on the date fixed.

Key takeaways

The trial will not be halted by the trial court and, on appearance of the said official, no adjournment shall be admissible to any of the parties.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 382 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 27; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; decided 20.04.2026) — Revisionist Jagga @ Jawahir Mishra, in custody, facing trial in S.T. No. 751/2023 (State v. Sandeep Yadav & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 82/2023 under Sections 302, 201, 449, 380, 411 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda — Earlier, Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2026 was disposed of at the admission stage (order dt. 19.02.2026) with direction to the trial court to summon the special report from the office of the District Magistrate, Gonda; the report was placed on record as paper No. 161 Ka — Trial court rejected application no. 164 Kha in part, declining to summon a responsible officer/employee to prove the document — Held, allowing the limited prayer: for want of evidence of the official of the office of the District Magistrate, the special report may not be read as evidence; the revisionist's stated purpose in summoning it was to indicate that the FIR in the case was anti-time — Trial court directed to summon the concerned official from the DM's office, preferably the custodian of special reports received from various police stations in the district; copy of the order to be attached to the summons and served through the District Magistrate, requiring appearance on the date fixed — Trial not to be halted; no adjournment admissible to any party on the official's appearance — Revisions disposed of finally.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 382 of 2026

Jagga @ Jawahir Mishra

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anand Pratap Singh, Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

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

The instant criminal revision has been in S.T. No. 751/2023 State versus Sandeep Yadav & others, arises out of Case Crime No. 82/2023, under Sections 302, 201,449, 380, 411 IPC & 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. - Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda by means of which rejected the application no.164 Kha in part and decline to summon the responsible officer/employee for the purpose of proving the document .

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is languishing in jail. He does not intend to purport the trial . The revisionist is facing trial for the aforesaid offences. He initially moved an application before the learned trial court on 01/01/2026 with the prayer to summon the special report from the office of the District Magistrate, Gonda, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 06.01.2026 . The revisionist has preferred criminal revision bearing Criminal Revision No.177 of 2026 against the order dated 06/01/2026 passed by the learned trial court before this court and this Court has disposed of the revision at the admission stage vide order dated 19/02/2026 with the direction to the learned trial court to summon special report from the office of the District Magistrate.

In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the learned trial court summoned the special report from the office of the District Magistrate, and the same has been placed on record as paper No.161 Ka. However, in the absence of the testimony of the official of the office of the District Magistrate, Gonda, said paper may not be proved and will not be read as evidence for want of proof. For that reason, the revisionist had moved an application before the court concerned with the prayer to summon an official from the office of the District Magistrate to prove the said special report which is placed on record as paper number 161 Ka.

CRLR No. 382 of 2026

2

Keeping in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that this is a case instituted for issuance of notice to respondent no.2/ the first informant of the criminal case concerned is hereby dismissed, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist that for want of evidence of the official of the office of the District Magistrate ,the said special report may not be read as evidence and the purpose of summoning the special report which the revisionist seeks to indicate that the FIR in the case was anti-time.

Therefore, it is hereby directed that the learned trial court shall summon the concerned official from the office of the District Magistrate, who is preferably custodian of special reports received from various police stations concerned in the district. A copy of this order may be attached with the summons issued to the official concerned, which shall be served upon him through the District Magistrate with the direction to appear before the court on the date fixed in the case.

It is clarified that the trial will not be halted by the trial court and on appearance of the said official, no adjournment shall be admissible to any of the parties.

The revisions stand disposed of finally with the above observation.

April 20, 2026 dk/

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench