# Brij Pal Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 630
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1703 of 1998
- **Bench:** Vivek Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-pal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46382
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
156
-
Allegation-opposite
party
prepared
a
for

## Text

630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which may persuade the court to exercise
its revisional jurisdiction.

50. The revision is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A630
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J

Criminal Revision No. 1703 of 1998
alongwith
Criminal Revision No. 2034 of 1998

Brij Pal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Onkar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Manav Chaurasia, Sri
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Sri S.S. Malik,
Sri Shiv Singh

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
202Cognizance
taken
on
account
of
evidence
of
PW2
-there
were
9
witnesses-not
mandatory
for
the
complainant
to
examine
all
the
witnesses named in the complainnat.

Held, The meaning of words "All his
witnesses" is to be understood in the light
of the fact that word 'His' is adjective
according to grammar qualifying word
'Witnesses'. 'His' means of himself, or
belonging to him, or associated with him.
(para 4)

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Satyadeo Pandey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., 1987 (1) Crimes 637
2. Dudh Nath Mishra Vs St. of U.P., 2003
Allahabad Law Journal 55

3. Chhotey Lal s/o Parmanand Vs St. of
U.P. & Smt. Rati Basor w/o Hasmukh
Basoi, 2006 Cr.L.J. 2265

4. Abdul Hamidkhan Pathan & Others Vs
St. of Guj. & ors. , 1989 Cr.L.J. 468 (Guj.
DB)

5. Kishor Singh & Etc. Vs Sudama Prasad
& ors. 2002 Cr.L.J. 802 (MP)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Onkar Singh,
learned counsel for revisionists and
Sri Shiv Singh, learned counsel for
opposite party.

2. Sri Onkar Singh submits that
impugned order has been passed only
upon taking evidence of a solitary
witnesses
whereas
as
per
the
provisions
contained
in
Section
202(2), it is provided that if it appears
to the Magistrate that the offence
complained of, is triable exclusively
by the Court of Sessions, he shall call
upon the complainant to produce all
his witnesses and examine them on
oath.

3. Reading impugned order dated
05.09.1998, it is submitted that as per
the evidence of PW2, cognizance has
been taken whereas fact of the matter
is that there are as many as nine
witnesses,
as
is
evident
from
Annexure-7 to the revision and they
all should have been examined in
terms of the Proviso below SubSection 2 of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
10 All. Brij Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
631

4. After hearing learned counsel
for
the
revisionists
and
going
through the record so also the
available case law on the subject, it
is evident that in case of Satyadeo
Pandey & Others vs. State of U.P. &
Another, 1987 (1) Crimes 637, it is
held that the meaning of words "All
his witnesses" is to be understood in
the light of the fact that word 'His' is
adjective
according
to
grammar
qualifying word 'Witnesses'. 'His'
means of himself, or belonging to
him,
or
associated
with
him.
According to the Websters, third
new internal dictionary, the word
'His'
connotes,
associated
or
connected with, of relating to him,
that he is capable of. In the present
context,
the
words
"All
his
witnesses" connotes that all the
witnesses
of
the
complainant
associated or connected with his
interest and those witnesses who are
material
and
relevant
to
prove
prosecution case. The words "All his
witnesses" under the proviso to this
Section do not refer literally to all
the prosecution witnesses in number,
rather to all his witnesses (i.e., of
the complainant) and to whom he
considers material to prove his case.

5. In case of Dudh Nath Mishra
vs. State of U.P., 2003 Allahabad
Law Journal 55 so also in case of
Chhotey Lal s/o Parmanand vs.
State of U.P. & Smt. Rati Basor w/o
Hasmukh Basoi, 2006 Cr.L.J. 2265,
it is held that it is not necessary to
examine all the witnesses named in
the complaint petition. In fact, it is
the discretion of the complainant to
examine some witnesses and to give
up rest of the witnesses. He is not
required
to
examine
even
those
persons whom he/she does not want
to place reliance.

6. In case of Abdul Hamidkhan
Pathan
&
Others
vs.
State
of
Gujarat & Others, 1989 Cr.L.J. 468
(Guj. DB), it is held that non
examination of all the witnesses
named
in
the
complaint
case
exclusively triable by the court of
sessions, the order of issuing process
to the accused is not illegal.

7. Thus, the legal position is
well settled as has been laid down in
case of Satyadev Pandey (supra),
Dudh Nath Mishra (supra), Chhote
Lal (supra) by the Allahabad High
Court and also in case of Abdul
Hamidkhan Pathan (supra) by the
Gujarat High Court and so also in
case of Kishor Singh & Etc. vs.
Sudama Prasad & Others, 2002
Cr.L.J. 802 (MP), wherein it is held
that it is not mandatory for the
complainant
to
examine
all
the
witnesses named in complaint, he
has
choice
in
the
matter
and,
therefore, this issue being already
settled by several pronouncements of
this High Court and other High
Courts,
is
to
be
answered
accordingly that there is no need to
examine all the witnesses in terms of
the Proviso below Sub-Section 2 of
Section 202 Cr.P.C., if a case is
triable by sessions court especially
having regard to the import and
meaning of word 'His' used in the
proviso.

8.

Accordingly,
criminal
revisions fail and are dismissed.
----------
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)10ILR A632
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J

Criminal Revision No. 1786 of 2021

Atul Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ali Hasan, Sri Istiyaq Ali

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
156
-
Allegation-opposite
party
prepared
a
forged referral letter -to lodge false FIR
against the revisionist--learned Magistrate
converted it into a complaint case -
Magistrate not applied judicious mind-as
offence made out a cognizable offence
and is offence of forgery-impugned order
set aside.

Matter remanded back to pass fresh order.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. 'Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of India & ors.',
reported in 2014(2) SCC 1;

2. Jitendra Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & 2 ors., Criminal
Revision
No.1768
of
2018,
decided
on
29.05.2018;

3. 'Shiv Mangal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.',
Criminal Revision No.715 of 2019, decided on
25.02.2019

4.Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs St. of U.P. & anr.',
passed in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No.43271 of 2018, decided on 30.11.2018.

5. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.' 2007 (59) ACC
739

6. Suresh Chandra Jain Vs State of M.P. & anr.
(2001) 2 SCC 628;

7. Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan & anr.
(2006) 1 SCC 627;

8. Ram Babu Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2001
(43) ACC 50 (FB);

9. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2007 (9) ADJI
(DB)

10. Ram Dev Food Products Vs St. of Guj.
(2015) 6 SCC 439

11. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of India & ors.
reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1

12. Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2002 SCC OnLine All 1221

13. 'Lalaram Vs St. of U.P. & 13 ors. passed in
Criminal Revision No.1611 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim
Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ali Hasan, learned
counsel for the revisionist and learned
A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused
the material brought on record.

2. This revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 16.10.2020
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II,
Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc.
Application No.3597 of 2020 (Atul Pandey
@ Param Pragyan Pandey versus Janardan
Pandey) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Police Station-Oonjh, District- Bhadohi
after summoning the record from the trial
court and remand the case before the
learned Magistrate for fresh consideration
of the application moved by the revisionist
under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration