# Jai Karan Singh & Anr. Revisionists(In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 978
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 620 of 1996
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-karan-singh-anr-revisionists-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45118
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 -
Sections 25, 29, 30 - Mere fact that
witnesses are police personnel does not
mean
that
their
evidence
must
be
rejected, if Courts find it clear, truthful
and creditworthy. (Para 19)

As a matter of rule, there can be no legal
proposition that evidence of police officers,
unless supported by independent witnesses, is
unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of
independent witness or even presence of such
witness during police raid would cast an added
duty on Court to adopt greater care while
scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If
the evidence of police officer is found acceptable,
it would be an erroneous proposition that Court
must reject prosecution version solely on the
ground that no independent witness was
examined. (Para 20 to 25)

B. In absence of anything to show that
findings recorded by both the Courts
below are perverse or there is any
misreading or any relevant evidence has
not been examined, there is no reason to
take a different view in this revision - The
case set up by Accused-Revisionists is that the
gun and cartridges were licensed to Jai Karan
Singh, who had gone to attend natural call and,
therefore, a temporary possession was given to
Balbir Singh. This was the explanation given by
Accused-Revisionists and to prove it onus lay
upon them. Defence taken by AccusedRevisionists
has
been
found
untrustworthy and afterthought, as could
not be proved. (Para 27)

Revision dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharajganj once in every three months
regarding the same.

15. In the result, the revision stands
allowed as above.

16. It is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on merits of the
case and the trial court would be at liberty
to decide the trial strictly in accordance
with law on the basis of evidence so
adduced by the parties.
----------
(2020)09ILR A978
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 620 of 1996

Jai Karan Singh & Anr. ...Revisionists(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Kameshwar Singh, Sri Pratap Kanchan
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.,

A. Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 -
Sections 25, 29, 30 - Mere fact that
witnesses are police personnel does not
mean
that
their
evidence
must
be
rejected, if Courts find it clear, truthful
and creditworthy. (Para 19)

As a matter of rule, there can be no legal
proposition that evidence of police officers,
unless supported by independent witnesses, is
unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of
independent witness or even presence of such
witness during police raid would cast an added
duty on Court to adopt greater care while
scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If
the evidence of police officer is found acceptable,
it would be an erroneous proposition that Court
must reject prosecution version solely on the
ground that no independent witness was
examined. (Para 20 to 25)

B. In absence of anything to show that
findings recorded by both the Courts
below are perverse or there is any
misreading or any relevant evidence has
not been examined, there is no reason to
take a different view in this revision - The
case set up by Accused-Revisionists is that the
gun and cartridges were licensed to Jai Karan
Singh, who had gone to attend natural call and,
therefore, a temporary possession was given to
Balbir Singh. This was the explanation given by
Accused-Revisionists and to prove it onus lay
upon them. Defence taken by AccusedRevisionists
has
been
found
untrustworthy and afterthought, as could
not be proved. (Para 27)

Revision dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pradeep Narayan Madqaonkar & ors. Vs St. of
Mah., (1990) 4 SCC 255 (Para 20)

2. Balbir Singh Vs State, (1996) 11 SCC 139 (Para 21)

3. Paras Ram Vs St. of Hary., (1992) 4 SCC 662
(Para 21)

4. Sama Alana Abdulla Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 1
SCC 427 (Para 21)

5. Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar Vs St. of
Mah., (1996) 2 SCC 589 (Para 21)

6.
Suhash
Singh
Thakurshyam
Vs
State
(Through CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732 (Para 22)

7. St. of U.P. Vs Zakaullah, 1998 Cri. L.J. 863 (Para 23)

8. Girja Prasad Vs St. of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625
(Para 24)

Present criminal revision has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
18.04.1996, passed by Special Judge (EC
9 All. Jai Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
979
Act), Banda, which affirmed judgment
dated 04.08.1994, passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Banda.

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

1. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh,
learned counsel for revisionists and learned
A.G.A. for State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
18.04.1996, passed by Sri Nand Lal Agarwal,
Special Judge (EC Act), Banda, in Criminal
Appeal No. 46 of 1994 and 48 of 1994. Both
the aforesaid appeals have been decided by
Special Judge by means of impugned common
judgment dated 18.04.1996. By impugned
judgment conviction and sentence awarded to
Accused-Revisionists vide judgment dated
04.08.1994 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Banda, has been affirmed.

3. Learned Trial Court vide judgment
dated 04.08.1994 has convicted Jai Karan
Singh, Revisionist-2 under Sections 29 and
30 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1959") and sentenced to 3
months
Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Revisionist-2, Balbir Singh has been
convicted and sentenced under Section 25
Act, 1959 to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment. It is also provided that
period already spent in jail shall be adjusted
towards the sentence awarded.

4. Being aggrieved with the judgment
and order dated 04.08.1994, AccusedRevisionists approached Appellate Court
separately. Accused-Revisionist Jai Karan
filed Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1994
whereas Accused-Revisionist Balbir Singh,
filed Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1994. Both
appeals were clubbed and heard together
and have been decided by a composite
judgment and order 18.04.1996, impugned
in this revision. Appellate Court has
dismissed appeals of Revisionists and
affirmed
judgment
and
order
dated
04.08.1994 passed by Trial Court.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 18.04.1996 passed by
Appellate Court this revision has been
preferred by Accused-Revisionists.

6. The brief facts giving rise to instant
revision are that on 14.2.1990, at about
10.00 AM, while Police of Police Station
Mathaudh, District, Banda was on routine
patrolling, they received an information
through Informer that an illegal factory of
manufacturing single barrel gun was
running and apprehension of untoward
incident was also expressed. Relying on
this information, Station Officer, Nand
Kishore, along with Police personnel
reached
in
front
of
the
house
of
Revisionist-2, Balbir Singh, at 10.00 AM
and saw aforesaid Revisionist standing at
the door along with a gun. Seeing Police,
he tried to escape by going inside but
Police seized and arrested him by force. On
enquiry he disclosed his name as Balbir
Singh son of Ram Manohar Singh, resident
of
village
Duredi,
Police
Station,
Mathaudh, District Banda.

7. From possession of AccusedRevisionist, Balbir Singh, one single barrel
factory made gun, two cartridges, one of
red colour and another black, one another
cartridge LG made in Holland, white in
colour, one cartridge LG Indian, one LG
ordinary and one empty cartridge were
recovered, for which, he could not show
any licence. He told that the said gun
belong to Accused-Revisionist-1, Jai Karan
Singh, who had gone to attend nature's call
leaving his gun and cartridges with Balbir
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh. Guns and cartridges were taken by
Police in possession and after sealing the
same, recovery memo was prepared and a
copy thereof was handed over to accused.

8. Thereafter along with recovered
articles Police returned to Police Station
and deposited the same. Case under Section
25 Act, 1959 against Accused-Revisionist2, Balbir Singh, and under Section 29/30 of
Act, 1959 against Accused-Revisionist, Jai
Karan Singh, were registered. Thereafter
Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred
to as "I.O.") PW-3, Ram Avtar Mathur
investigated the case and prepared site plan
Ext. ka-6. He sought necessary sanction to
prosecute
Accused-Revisionist,
Balbir
Singh under Section 25 of Act, 1959.
District
Magistrate
vide
order
dated
04.10.1990 (Ext. ka-7) accorded sanction
for
prosecution
against
AccusedRevisionist, Balbir Singh under Section 25
of
Act,
1959.
After
conclusion
of
investigation I.O. submitted charge sheet
Ext. ka-2 in the Court of First Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda against
Accused-Revisionist, Balbir Singh and,
Ext. ka-3 against Accused-Revisionist, Jai
Karan Singh.

9.

Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-I took cognizance of the offence
on 15.11.1990. Thereafter he framed charge
against Accused-Revisionist, Balbir Singh
on 07.05.1991 as under:

^^eSa vftr euksgj izFke vfr0 eq[;
U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] ckank rqe vfHk;qDr cyohj
flag ij fuEuor~ vkjksi yxkrk gwWa%&

1- ;g fd fnukad 14-2-90 dks le;
djhc 10 cts fnu cgn xzke nqjsM+h Fkkuk eVkS/k esa
vkids edku ls vkids ikl ls iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa
us ,d cUnwd ,dukyh 12 cksj rFkk 6 dkjrwl 12
cksj ds cjken fd;s ftldks j[kus dk vkids ikl
dksbZ oS/k ykbZlsal ugha FkkA bl izdkj vkius /kjk
25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k
fd;k tks esjs izlaKku esa gSA

,rn~}kjk vki dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd
vki dk ijh{k.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA**

I, Ajit Manohar, I Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda charge
you accused Balvir Singh as under:-

1. That on 14.02.1990 at about
10.00 AM, in Village Duredi within P.S.
Mathaudh police personnel recovered a
single barrel gun of 12 bore and 6
cartridges of 12 bore from your possession
at your house for which, you had no valid
licence. Thus you have committed an
offense punishable under Section 25 Arms
Act and within my cognizance. You are
hereby directed to be tried by this Court for
the aforesaid offense.

You are hereby directed to be
tried by this Court for the aforesaid
charges." (English translation by Court)

10. Accused-Revisionist, Jai Karan was
charged vide order dated 07.05.1991 as under:

^^eSa vftr euksgj izFke vfr0 eq[;
U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] ckank rqe vfHk;qDr t;dj.k
ij fuEuor~ vkjksi yxkrk gwWa%&

1- ;g fd fnukad 14-2-90 dks le;
djhc 10 cts fnu cgn xzke nqjsM+h Fkkuk eVkSa/k esa
cyohj flag ds ikl ls vkidh ykbZlsalh cUnwd
12 cksj iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa us cjkcn dhA ftldks
vkius viuh cUnwd dk voS/k iz;ksx fd;k] bl
izdkj /kkjk 29@30 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr
n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks esjs izlaKku esa gSA

,rn~}kjk vki dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS
fd vki dk ijh{k.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k
tk;sxkA**
9 All. Jai Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
981

"I, Ajit Manohar, First Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda charge
you accused Jai Karan as under:-

1. That on 14.02.1990 at about 10
AM in village Duredi, P.S. Mathaudh police
personnel have recovered your 12 bore
licensed gun from possession of Balvir
Singh and thereby you have made illegal
use of your gun and thus committed an
offence punishable under Section 29/30
Arms Act and within the cognizance of this
Court.

You are hereby directed to be
tried by this Court for the aforesaid
charges." (English translation by Court)

11. Thereafter prosecution in order to
substantiate
the
guilt
of
AccusedRevisionists, examined three witnesses
namely PW-1 Constable Jagbhan Singh,
who was amongst the police team who
arrested accused Balbir at his house; PW-2
Veerpal Singh who had also accompanied
Police Party and a witness of recovery of
arms and ammunition and arrest of the
Accused, Balbir Singh, and PW-3 S.I. Ram
Avtar Mathur, I.O., who proved site plan
Ext. ka-6, sanction for prosecution of
Accused-Revisionist, Balbir Singh (Ext.
ka-7). PW-2 has also proved charge-sheet,
Ext. ka-2, and ka-3 against AccusedRevisionists.

12. After closure of prosecution
evidence,
Accused-Revisionists
were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on
07.05.1991. They had denied prosecution
story and stated that witnesses are deposing
falsely. Accused-Revisionist, Balbir Singh
has stated that co-accused Jai Karan after
leaving his gun and 10 cartridges with him
inside his house, had gone to attend the call
of nature. In the mean time Inspector
reached and recovered the gun. They had
not recovered LG cartridges from his
possession. Similarly Revisionist, Jai Karan
Singh, has also denied prosecution story
and stated the same to be false. Supporting
statement of Accused Balbir Singh, he has
stated that he had left one licensed gun and
10 cartridges with his bhanja-Balbir inside
his house and had gone to attend nature's
call. In the mean time, Inspector came and
made recovery. He has stated that no LG
cartridge was recovered.

13. It appears that both the AccusedRevisionist were again examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.05.1994. Balbir
Singh has reiterated his earlier statement
and stated that on the date of occurrence at
about 10.00 AM, Jai Karan had kept his
single barrel gun along with 10 cartridges
in his house saying that he is going to
attend call of nature. In the mean time
Station Officer of Police Station arrived
and recovered the aforesaid gun and
cartridges from inside the house. He also
stated
that
villagers
had
seen
the
occurrence but due to fear of police nobody
came forward. In the mean time, Jai Karan,
came over there and demanded his gun but
police did not hand over and challaned
them. Balbir Singh further has stated that
PW-1 and PW-2 are police personnel and
deposing falsely. They have prepared a
fabricated case against him and never
visited the place of occurrence; alleged
sanction obtained from District Magistrate
is also a manufactured document and since
he did not give money to police, he has
been
falsely
implicated.
AccusedRevisionist, Jai Karan, on 09.05.1994 has
reiterated his earlier stand saying that
prosecution story is false.

14. Thereafter in defence, AccusedRevisionist, Jai Karan Singh, examined
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
himself as DW-1. He has stated that
Accused, Balbir Singh is his Bhanja and on
13.09.1990 he had gone to his village and
stayed at his house. He also had taken his
lisensed gun and cartridges with him. In the
next morning at about 9-10 AM he had
gone to ease near Cane River where he also
took bath. When he returned to the house of
Balbir Singh, he saw that Inspector was
coming from inside the house of Balbir
with his gun. On enquiry, Inspector said
that he was taking the accused Balbir with
the gun and cartridges to Police Station. He
has also stated that in his belt there were no
LG cartridges. He also had gone to Police
Station but Police personnel had driven him
away.

15. In defence accused have also
examined Gajodhar Singh as DW-2. He has
stated that on 13/14.09.1990, Jai Karan
Singh had gone to the house of Balbir
Singh. Next day, Inspector reached there
and called Balbir Singh who came out of
the house empty handed. In the meantime
Police personnel along with the Inspector
entered the house of Balbir Singh.
Inspector sat in the courtyard and other
police personnel got opened the lock of the
room inside the house and took out a gun,
cartridges and the belt. After taking the
gun, cartridges, belt and licence, Inspector
went away. There were no LG cartridges in
the belt when Inspector left for Police
Station. Jai Karan Singh had come back
after easing himself. Jai Karan Singh had
protested and said to Inspector that the gun
is licensed and why he was taking away the
same. Thereafter, Inspector had gone to
Police Station along with gun, cartridges
and Revisionist, Balbir Singh.

16. On appreciation of evidence on
record and after hearing counsel for the
parties, Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced Accused-Revisionist as stated
above. Appeal against conviction and
sentence recorded by Trial Court having
been dismissed, the Accused-Revisionists
are before this Court against the impugned
order of dismissal of appeal and affirmation
of order of Trial Court.

17. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

18. Learned counsel for revisionists
contended that in this case prosecution has
set up its case totally founded on the
statement of PWs-1 and 2, Constable
Jagbhan Singh and Constable Veerpal
Singh and there was no independent
witness, therefore, conviction on the basis
of only police witnesses is illegal and it
cannot be said that prosecution proved its
case beyond doubt. He next contended that
the gun was licensed and belong to
Accused-Revisionist, Jai Karan Singh, who
has gone to attend his natural call. Only for
a short period it was in the possession of
Accused-Revisionist, Balbir Singh and
short possession thereof cannot be said to
be an offence under Section 25 of Act,
1959.

19. It is true that entire prosecution
case is founded on the evidence of police
personnel but mere fact that witnesses are
police personnel does not mean that their
evidence must be rejected, if Courts find it
clear, truthful and creditworthy.

20. As a matter of rule, there can be
no legal proposition that evidence of police
officers, unless supported by independent
witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Nonexamination of independent witness or
even presence of such witness during
police raid would cast an added duty on
Court
to
adopt
greater
care
while
9 All. Jai Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
983
scrutinising the evidence of the police
officers. If the evidence of police officer is
found acceptable, it would be an erroneous
proposition
that
Court
must
reject
prosecution version solely on the ground
that no independent witness was examined.
In Pradeep Narayan Madqaonkar &
others vs. State of Maharashtra 1995 (4)
SCC 255, it was held:

"Indeed, the evidence of the
official
(police)
witnesses
cannot
be
discarded merely on the ground that they
belong to the police force and are, either
interested in the investigation of the
prosecuting agency but prudence dictates
that their evidence needs to be subjected to
strict scrutiny and as far as possible
corroboration of their evidence in material
particulars should be sought. Their desire
to see the success of the case based on their
investigation, requires greater care to
appreciate their testimony."

21. In Balbir Singh vs. State
1996(11) SCC 139, Court has repelled a
similar
contention
based
on
nonexamination of independent witnesses. The
same legal position has been reiterated time
and again by Apex Court vide Paras Ram
vs. State of Haryana 1992 (4) SCC 662,
Sama Alana Abdulla vs. State of Gujarat
1996 (1) SCC 427 and Anil alias Andya
Sadashiv
Nandoskar
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra 1996 (2) SCC 589.

22. In Subhash Singh Thakurshyam
vs State (Through CBI) (1997) 8 SCC
732, a Two Judge Bench comprising of
Hon'ble M. Mukherjee and Hon'ble K.
Thomas JJ, in para 90, observed:

"....We should not forget that the
time of the raid was during the odd hours
when possibly no pedestrian would have
been trekking on the road nor any
shopkeeper remaining in his shop nor a
hawker moving around on the pavements."

23. In State of U.P. v. Zakaullah
1998 Cri. L.J. 863 in para-10, it is said:

"The necessity for "independent
witness" in cases involving police raid or
police search is incorporated in the statute
not for the purpose of helping the indicted
person to bypass the evidence of those
panch witnesses who have had some
acquaintance with the police or officers
conducting the search at some time or the
other. Acquaintance with the police by itself
would not destroy a man's independent
outlook.
In
a
society
where
police
involvement is a regular phenomenon many
people would get acquainted with the
police. But as long as they are not
dependent on the police for their living or
liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be
said that those are not independent
persons. If the police in order to carry out
official duties, have sought the help of any
other person he would not forfeit his
independent character by giving help to
police action. The requirement to have
independent witness to corroborate the
evidence of the police is to be viewed from
a realistic angle. Every citizen of India
must be presumed to be an independent
person until it is proved that he was a
dependent of the police or other officials
for any purpose whatsoever."

24. Referring to some of the the
aforesaid decisions, Court in Girja Prasad
Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 held:

"It is well-settled that credibility
of witness has to be tested on the
touchstone
of
truthfulness
and
trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given case, a Court of Law may not base
conviction solely on the evidence of
Complainant or a Police Official but it is
not the law that police witnesses should not
be relied upon and their evidence cannot be
accepted unless it is corroborated in
material particulars by other independent
evidence. The presumption that every
person acts honestly applies as much in
favour of a Police Official as any other
person. No infirmity attaches to the
testimony
of
Police
Officials
merely
because they belong to Police Force. There
is no rule of law which lays down that no
conviction
can
be
recorded
on
the
testimony of Police Officials even if such
evidence
is
otherwise
reliable
and
trustworthy. The rule of prudence may
require more careful scrutiny of their
evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that
what was stated by a witness has a ring of
truth, conviction can be based on such
evidence." (para 25)

25. In view thereof contention that
prosecution evidence comprised of only
statement of police personnel, therefore,
must be rejected, has no substance and not
accepted.

26. Coming to second aspect, I find
that recovery of gun and cartridges from
possession of Balbir Singh is duly proved,
as discussed above. Both the Courts below
have recorded concurrent finding on this
aspect, which could not be shown perverse
or contrary to record.

27. Now the case set up by AccusedRevisionists is that the gun and cartridges
were licenced of Jai Karan Singh, who has
gone to attend natural call and, therefore, a
temporary possession was given to Balbir
Singh. This was the explanation given by
Accused-Revisionists and to prove it onus
lie upon them. The said fact sought to be
proved by Sri Gajodhar Singh, DW-2,
whose deposition has been found wholly
untrustworthy. It is also evident from
record that if gun and cartridges were taken
by police personnel illegally no complaint
was made by Jai Karan Singh or even by
Balbir Singh to any police officer, superior
to police personnel who had taken the gun
and cartridges. Therefore, defence taken by
Accused-Revisionists
has
been
found
untrustworthy
and
afterthought.
The
findings recorded by both the Courts below
are concurrent and in absence of anything
to show that same are perverse or there is
any misreading or any relevant evidence
has not been examined, I find no reason to
take a different view in this revision.

28. On the question of sentence,
learned counsel for revisionists sought to
argue that punishment of one year awarded to
Accused-Revisionist,
Balbir
Singh
is
excessive but he has been found to be in
possession of firearm and cartridges without
licence, which is a serious matter and I find
no reason to remit the sentence. In my view
sentence awarded by Courts below is justified
and warrants no interference.

29. Dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.

30. The accused, Jai Karan Singh and
Balbir Singh, are on bail. Their bail bonds
and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause
them to be arrested and lodge in jail to
serve out the sentence passed against them.
The compliance shall be prepared within
two months.

31. Certify this judgment to the lower
Court immediately.
----------
9 All. Mohd. Ashraf Vs. State of U.P.
985
(2020)09ILR A985
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 932 of 2016

Mohd. Ashraf ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lav Srivastava, Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri
Ashutosh Mishra.

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

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangster & AntiSocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1), 14(1), 16(1)- Release of
Vehicle - It is not desirable in the matter
of motor vehicle, that the same be kept at
the police station for a long time which
results in the vehicle becoming junk,
therefore, the vehicle-in-question should
be released in favour of the registered
owner on such terms and conditions as
the Court below may deem fit and proper.
(Para 12)

In the instant case no criminal case has been
ever instituted against the revisionist nor has it
come on record that the alleged vehicle has
been used in the crime in question alleged to
have been committed by the brother of the
revisionist.

Rejection of release application set aside and
matter is remitted.

Revision disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

1. Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj.,
2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 (Para 13)
Present criminal revision has been filed for
quashing order dated 15.03.2016, passed
by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act),
Bhadohi-Gyanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Lav
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision under
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing
the
order
dated
15.3.2016
(wrongly mentioned in the impugned order
dated as 15.3.2015) passed by learned
Special Judge (Gangster Act), BhadohiGyanpur in Reference Case No.3 of 2015,
whereby the release application filed by the
revisionist has been rejected.

3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the revisionist that vehicle i.e. Toyota
Fortuner bearing registration No.U.P. 70
CU 5707 belongs to the revisionist and it
has no concern with his brother Muzaffar.
The aforesaid vehicle was financed by the
Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank,
Branch Bamrauli. It is next contended that
brother of the revisionist namely Muzaffar
is being prosecuted under Section 3(1) of
U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities
Prevention Act, 1986 for which first
information report bearing case crime
no.90 of 2014 was lodged at Police Station
Aurai,
District
Sant
Ravidas
Nagar,
Bhadohi. It is further submitted that in case
crime no.90 of 2014 a report was submitted
by the Officer Incharge of Police Station
Mahila Thana, under Section 14(1) of U.P.
Gangster
&
Anti
Social
Activities
Prevention Act for attachment of property
of brother of the revisionist Muzaffar,
thereafter,
on
aforesaid
report