# Jameel Haider Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 508 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-15 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jameel-haider-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44115 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote The revisionist by way of filing this revision has sought to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha. The revision of the opposite parties was allowed firstly; on the ground that the witnesses were present on the spot but they have not made an attempt to stop the tractor on which the stolen cut wood were being carried; secondly on the ground that on perusal of the enquiry paper No.12 b and 13 b produced by the opposite parties 'Neem' tree was not found standing on Gata No.138, so there was no question of cutting the 'Neem' tree by them. The finding recorded by the revisional court is against the face of evidence on record. Khasra of the said land clearly show that certain neem and mango trees were standing on the land in question. Moreover, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 is liable to be set aside.Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., (1973) 2 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521; 7 All. Jameel Haider Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 509 Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430; Nagawwa v. Veerappa Shivalingappa Koujalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507; Sripat Sahai v. Ganpat Sahai, 1979 All Cr C 127 (All)." ## Text 508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 8. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is summarily allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Room No.1, Allahabad and the order dated 06.03.2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Allahabad are hereby set aside. 9. Revisionist, Smt. Rani Devi is directed to appear before the trial court on 27th July, 2016. Learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. In case she fails to appear before the trial court personally or through the counsel on the date fixed i.e. 27th July, 2016 or on the date fixed thereafter by the said court, the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order after hearing the opposite parties no.2 and 3. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1090 Of 2014 Jameel Haider ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Vivek Sharma Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate The revisionist by way of filing this revision has sought to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha. The revision of the opposite parties was allowed firstly; on the ground that the witnesses were present on the spot but they have not made an attempt to stop the tractor on which the stolen cut wood were being carried; secondly on the ground that on perusal of the enquiry paper No.12 b and 13 b produced by the opposite parties 'Neem' tree was not found standing on Gata No.138, so there was no question of cutting the 'Neem' tree by them. The finding recorded by the revisional court is against the face of evidence on record. Khasra of the said land clearly show that certain neem and mango trees were standing on the land in question. Moreover, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 is liable to be set aside.Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., (1973) 2 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521; 7 All. Jameel Haider Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 509 Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430; Nagawwa v. Veerappa Shivalingappa Koujalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507; Sripat Sahai v. Ganpat Sahai, 1979 All Cr C 127 (All)." (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. List has been revised. None responds on behalf of the revisionist and the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4. Learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State of U.P. 2. The revisionist by way of filing this revision has sought to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha in Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another). 3. The revision of the opposite parties was allowed firstly; on the ground that the witnesses were present on the spot but they have not made an attempt to stop the tractor on which the stolen cut wood were being carried; secondly on the ground that on perusal of the enquiry paper No.12 b and 13 b produced by the opposite parties 'Neem' tree was not found standing on Gata No.138, so there was no question of cutting the 'Neem' tree by them. The finding recorded by the revisional court is against the face of evidence on record. Khasra of the said land clearly show that certain neem and mango trees were standing on the land in question. Photostat copy of the same has been filed along with the affidavit filed in support of this revision. It is further argued that the impugned order is palpably erroneous and against the provisions of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. In the impugned order dated 24.2.2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha it has been mentioned that the complainant Jameel Haider was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses, namely, Safdar Ali and Sabana were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who were brother-in-law (looser) and wife of the complainant respectively and they have been found as interested witness. It has also been found that no independent witness have been examined. 5. In the copy of the Khasra, no 'Neem' tree has been mentioned. On this analysis, the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha has allowed the Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) vide order dated 24.02.2014. "Sufficient ground: Meaning- The words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., (1973) 2 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521; See also Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430; Nagawwa v. Veerappa Shivalingappa Koujalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507; Sripat Sahai v. Ganpat Sahai, 1979 All Cr C 127 (All)." 510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 6. Resultantly, the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case No.1899 of 2013 (Jameel Haider v. Nafisul and others) suffers from no legal infirmity. 7. Moreover, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha is liable to be set aside. 8. Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed. 9. Criminal Revision is allowed. 10. The impugned judgement and order dated 24.02.2014 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha in Criminal Revision No.418 of 2013 (Nafisul and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is quashed. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 1158 Of 2009 Buddhipal Verma ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mukesh Kumar Tewari, Anil K. Tripathi, Soniya Mishra Counsel for the Respondent: G.A Instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2009, whereby accused-appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-with default stipulation of six months' imprisonment. According to the prosecution version, accused-appellant (Buddhipal Verma) is the husband of deceased (Sunita Devi). FIR was lodged by Ram Ujagar father of the deceased on 28.10.2006 at 22.30 hours stating that deceased Sunita Devi was married to accused-appellant Buddhipal Verma in their childhood. Gauna took place about three years back. Sufficient articles were giving in the marriage but in the Gauna accused and his father Madhau Ram, brother Vijay Pal and Dhrub Pal were insisting for a ''Splendor Motor Cycle' but the complainant could not give it due to his poverty. Since then deceased went to her in laws house three or four times. Whenever she was in her in laws house she was tortured for the demand of motor cycle. In the