# Karm Raj Dubey v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1471
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-10-08
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 4823 of 2013
- **Bench:** Saaed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karm-raj-dubey-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-42727
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3 All] Karm Raj Dubey Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1471
appointed, with all consequential benefits
for the purpose of pay fixation, seniority,
increment etc. except of actual arrears of
salary, which shall be paid to petitioner
from the date he is actually appointed.

25. The writ petition is allowed in the
manner, as above.

26. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to cost, which I quantify to Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees five thousand).
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAAED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 4823 of 2013

Karm Raj Dubey

 ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Karm Raj Dubey(In-Person)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.
Criminal Revision-Dismissal-as not pressedwithout opposition-held-once revision filed
against-can be decided either way only on
its merit-such order of dismissal-is no order
-in eye of law.

Held: Para-15&16
15. In view of these authorities, it
appears that the concerned Revisional
Court has adopted obviously less tedious
approach in dismissing the revision only
because the application was moved that
the revision may be dismissed as not
pressed.

16. In either case, a criminal revision or
a criminal appeal has to be disposed of
by the Revisional Court/Appellate Court
on merits and not otherwise. Neither it
may be dismissed in default nor it can be
dismissed as the revisionist/appellant
did not wish to proceed with the
revision/appeal.

Case Law discussed:
(2007) 7 SCC 623; (2004) 4 SCC 158; (1978) 1
SCC 579; S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 9816 of 2009; 1992
Supp. 2 SCR 305; 1993(3)SCALE 312; (1996)
9 SCC 372; AIR 1987 SC 1500; AIR 1938 Sind
171; (1996) 4 SCC 720.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order
dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Learned
Sessions Judge,
Faizabad
in Criminal
Revision No. 265 of 2011, by which the
revision has been dismissed as not pressed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner as well Learned AGA.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are
closely related with each other and a large
number of civil disputes are pending
between
them
before Civil
Courts.
Opposite party no. 2 initiated a criminal
proceeding against the petitioner and his
two sons and another person. There was a
cross-case for which FIR No. 235 of 2011
was also lodged at P.S.- Kotwali Nagar.
Writ petition no. 6426 (DB) of 2011 was
also filed which was dismissed vide order
dated 03.05.2011. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, Faizabad passed order on
27.08.2011,
which
was
challenged
through
the
revision,
which
was
numbered as Criminal Revision No. 265
of 2011. The copy of order dated
13.08.2013 shows that an application was
moved by the revisionist that he wishes to
withdraw the revision as not pressed,
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which was not opposed by the opposite
party. The learned Sessions Judge allowed
the application paper No. 31-A and
criminal revision was dismissed as not
pressed, which has been assailed before
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge has not entered
into the merits of the revision nor has
passed any order relating to the merits of
the case.

4. The settled legal position is that
when a criminal revision is admitted it
cannot be dismissed in default or as not
pressed or otherwise it has to be decided
on merits, in a legal manner, and, as such,
the impugned order passed by learned
Sessions Judge is no order in the eyes of
law.

5. In the case of Madan Lal Kapoor
vs. Rajiv Thapar & Ors. [(2007) 7 SCC
623], Hon'ble the Apex Court has held,
which is as under:-

"The matter relates to administration
of criminal justice. As held by this Court,
a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for
default and it must be decided on merits.
Only on that ground the appeal deserves
to be allowed."

6. Due to this legal requirement,
there is no need to issue notice to opposite
party no. 2.

7. It may be mentioned here that the
judicial system cannot be taken to ransom
by having resort to grounds beyond the
purview of law. The courts are enjoined
upon to perform their duties with the
object of strengthening the confidence of
the common man in the institution
entrusted with the administration of
justice. Any order, which weakens the
system and shaken the faith of the
common man in the justice dispensation
system has to be discouraged.

8. While holding this, this court
relies upon the law laid down by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in the case of Zahira
Habibulla H.Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
[(2004) 4 SCC 158], in which it was held
as under :-

"Courts have always been considered
to have an overriding duty to maintain
public confidence in the administration of
justice-often referred to as the duty to
vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the
law'. Due administration of justice has
always been viewed as a continuous
process, not confined to determination of
the particular case, protecting its ability to
function as a court of law in the future as
in the case before it."

9. Before concluding, I may hold
that in a democratic set-up, intrinsic and
embedded faith in the adjudicatory system
is of seminal and pivotal concern. It is the
faith and faith alone that keeps the system
alive. It provides oxygen constantly.
Fragmentation of faith has the effectpotentiality to bring in a state of
cataclysm where justice may become a
casualty. A litigant expects a reasoned
verdict from a temperate Judge but does
not intent to and rightly so, to guillotine
much of time at the altar of reasons.
Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith
ingrained and establishes the sustained
stability. Access to speedy justice is
regarded as a human right which is deeply
rooted in the foundational concept of
democracy and such a right is not only the
creation of law but also a natural right.
This right can be fully ripened by the
requisite commitment of all concerned
3 All] Karm Raj Dubey Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1473
with the system. It cannot be regarded as
a facet of Utopianism because such a
thought is likely to make the right a
mirage losing the centrality of purpose.

10. In an earlier decision, in the case
of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. [(1978) 1
SCC 579], Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J had
stated thus:-

"Our justice system, even in grave
cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome
which is lethal to 'fair trial', whatever the
ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a
component of social justice since the
community, as a whole, is concerned in
the criminal being condignly and finally
punished within a reasonable time and the
innocent
being
absolved
from
the
inordinate
ordeal
of
criminal
proceedings."

11. The same proposition is
applicable to criminal appeal as held by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.
1680 of 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.)
No. 9816 of 2009).

12. This legal proposition is
constantly been followed by all the Courts
right
from
its
inception
in
preindependence era.

13. The legislature has cast an
obligation on the Appellate Court to
decide an appeal on its merits only in the
case of Death Reference, regardless of
whether or not an appeal has been
preferred by the convict.

14. A three Judge Bench in Kishan
Singh vs. State of U.P. [1992] Supp. 2 SCR
305: 1993 (3) SCALE 312: (1996) 9 SCC
372 decided on November 2, 1992. The
Bench overruled the observations in the
dismissal order passed in Ram Naresh Yadav
v. State of Bihar [AIR 1987 SC 1500] and
approved Shyam Deo Pandey; it also
adverted to similar opinions expressed in
Emperor v. Balumal Hotchand AIR 1938
Sind 171. It noted the disparate language in
Section 384 of the Cr.P.C. and Order 41 Rule
17 of the CPC before quoting that it is the
duty of the Appellate Court to consider the
appeal as well as the judgment under
challenge on its merits.

15. In view of these authorities, it
appears that the concerned Revisional Court
has adopted obviously less tedious approach
in dismissing the revision only because the
application was moved that the revision
may be dismissed as not pressed.

16. In either case, a criminal
revision or a criminal appeal has to be
disposed
of
by
the
Revisional
Court/Appellate Court on merits and not
otherwise. Neither it may be dismissed in
default nor it can be dismissed as the
revisionist/appellant did not wish to
proceed with the revision/appeal.

17. In the case of Bani Singh vs.
State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720], a three
Judge Bench of this Court held that a
criminal appeal should not be dismissed
in defaut but should be decided on merits.
It despite notice neither the appellant nor
his counsel is present, the court should
decide the appeal on merits.

18. In view of above, the petition is
allowed and the order dated 13.08.2013
passed by the Learned Sessions Judge,
Faizabad is hereby quashed.

19. The Learned Sessions Judge,
Faizabad is directed to decide the criminal
revision in accordance with law after
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affording opportunity of being heard to
the parties.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Rent Control No.5886 of 1987

Smt. Satyawati Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ist. A.D.J. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri U.K. Srivastava, Sri K.C. Gupta
Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri O.P. Misra

U.P.
Urban
Building(Regulation
of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1973Section 21-Eviction on ground of bona
fide need-both the authorities belowheld-need of land lord not bonafideduring pendancy of writ petition land
lord died-writ court can not consider the
bonafide need of heirs of land lordexpect the prescribed authority-petition
dismissed as infructous with liberty to
file fresh application-till such application
decided-tenant to give enhanced rent-as
per dictum of Apex Court.

Held: Para-9
However, as both the courts below held
that his need was not bona fide hence there
is absolutely no occasion to consider in this
writ petition as to whether the deceased
(Shankar Lal) had proved his need or not. It
would be purely academic. Learned counsel
for petitioners argued that petitioners
belong to business community and need for
the sons of Shankar Lal may be presumed.
However need has to be proved and not
presumed. It will be highly improper to
decide as to whether substituted legal
representatives of Shankar Lal have got any
bona fide need in the writ petition for the
first time. This is basically the job of the
Prescribed Authority.

Case Law discussed:
2006(1) ARC 157; 2004(2) ARC 64; AIR 1997
SC 2510.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for petitioners and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned counsel for contesting respondent
tenant.

2. This is landlords' writ petition
arising out of eviction/ release proceedings
initiated by them under Section 21 of U.P.
Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred
to as U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) on the ground
of bona fide need. Release application was
filed by Shanker Lal and Babu Ram, both
real brothers and their mother Smt. Bitana in
the form of P.A. Case No.31 of 1976, Babu
Ram and others Vs. Om Prkash. Smt. Bitana
died during pendency of release applications
and was survived by the other two
applicants, hence her name was deleted. Sri
Babu Ram also died on 25.11.1983 and was
substituted by his widow Smt. Stayawati,
original petitioner No.1. Both the petitioners
i.e. Smt. Satyawati and Sri Shanker Lal died
during pendency of the writ petition and
were
substituted
by
their
legal
representatives. Original tenant respondent
No.3, Om Prakash also died during pendency
of writ petition and was substituted by his
legal representatives.

3. Twice the matter was remanded
by the lower appellate court. After second
remand, the Prescribed Authority, Munsif
Barabanki
dismissed
the
release
application on 22.08.1984. Against the
said order, original petitioners filed Rent