Allowed

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Aug 2013CR. REV./858/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the conviction and sentence after finding that prosecution documents essential for the defence were not produced due to court laches. The court avoided remittal citing 19 years of delay and significant loss to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioners set free from bail bonds.

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.858 of 2002

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Ram Bahadur Yadav, son of Sri Kari Yadav 2. Kari Yadav, son of Late Ram Khelawan Yadav Both resident of villag e- Shivutol, P.S. – Bachhwara, District – Begusarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s

¶4

The State of Bihar

¶5

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None turned up For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP

¶6

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-08-2013

¶7

None turned up on behalf of the petitioners on repeated calls. Similar is the position being continued for the last few days.

¶8

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Sujit Kumar Singh.

¶9

Perused the record and memo of revision. This revision application has preferred against order of 1^st Appellate Court dated 7^th February 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2000, by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, dismissing the appeal upholding the conviction of petitioners under section 3 of R.P.(U.P.) Act, as ordered on 4^th May 2000 by Railway Judicial Magistrate, Barauni, in Barauni P.S. Case No. 13/1994.

¶10

Out of three items seized article from control of the appellants, about two i.e. Iron rods and dynamo, the Appellate Court has already arrived at the conclusion, on consideration of the materials, that prosecution has not been able to establish their case.

¶11

¶12

But, as regard to recovery of few sleepers, taking into consideration admission of the applicants, the said article being railway property and seized from their control, but a claim of purchase of the same from the railway, the Appellate Court finding no material in support of such alleged purchase uphold conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

¶13

As is evident to produce relevant papers establishing defence of the petitioners railway authorities were directed to produce relevant papers for which cost of special messenger were also deposited by defence, but somehow or the other on one or other count document in original could not be produced/taken into evidence, ultimately trial court admitted xerox copy for identification. The learned Appellate Court while deprecating the procedure adopted by the trial court getting the xerox copy exhibited, instead of taking any further steps to procure the original document observed trial court has already taken lenient view and dismissed the appeal, giving rise to this revision.

¶14

Once a litigant complied orders of the court relating to calling for a document, without completing the procedures, he cannot be deprived and subjected to punishment for the laches not committed by them. In the instant case, trial court once allowed the prayer of defence, ordered calling for the documents, ought to have completed all requirements, and if, by adopting due procedure original document is not available. Secondary evidence by adopting due procedure also could have been taken into evidence, but nothing of the kind happened.

¶15

¶16

It is equally settled law that a litigant cannot suffer for any wrong or laches committed by the court/office. Since this case originated in the year 1994, has already traveled for about 19 years. Thus, it will not be proper to get the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh hearing after completing legal requirements rather taking into consideration, the loss suffered by the applicants due to delayed litigation, period of detention, monetary loss and mental agony caused, their conviction and sentence is set aside. Accordingly, this revision application is hereby allowed. The petitioners are set free from their respective bail bonds.

¶17

(Akhilesh Chandra, J.)

¶18

Rajeev/-

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

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

Nawal Vs The State Of Bihar

Pradeep Sah @ Theha Vs The State Of Bihar

Satyanarayan Yadav @ Satyanarayan Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Dharmendra Nath Roy Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Suresh Bhagat Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Sharan Singh @ Gopal Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.