# Lok Bahadur and others Revisionists v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 214
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-26
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lok-bahadur-and-others-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-another-40830
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-S. 397 (1)-
Criminal Revision-offence under section
323/34 IPC-sentenced with six month
R.I. with 500/- fine-conviction order
passed in the year 1992-more than 14
years passed undoubtly the conviction
cemented by concurrent finding of factsrevisionist remained in jail for about one
month-nothing to suggest regarding any
mis happening by either side during this
period-conviction reduced to already
undergone with fine of Rs.4000/- on
each-payable
to
the
injured-revision
party allowed.
1 All] Lok Bahadur and others V. State of U.P. and another
215
Held: Para 8

I have considered the submissions of the
rival sides. This is admitted that the
incident occurred in the year 1992 and
fourteen years had lapsed since then and
that the revisionist do not have any bad
antecedent. No doubt their conviction is
cemented by the concurrent findings of
facts but after such a long gap of
fourteen years things must have settled
down a lot between the rival factions.
There is nothing on record to suggest
that any of sides did any thing after the
incident or made any complaint against
each other. The revisionist also remained
in jail for about a month as is clear from
the lower appellate court record which
indicates that after their conviction by
the trial court on 27.10.2004 they filed
appeal against the said conviction on
9.11.2004 on which date they were
ordered to be released on bail by the
lower appellate court. After dismissal of
their appeal by the lower appellate court
on 7.8.2006 they filed instant revision in
this
court
on
11.8.2006
and
on
18.8.2006 they were ordered to be
released on bail by this court. Their
actual release must have taken another a
week. Thus it seems that the revisionists
had remained in jail for more than a
month. In this view of the matter I
consider it appropriate that the sentence
for the period already under gone and a
compensation of Rs. Four thousand each
to be paid to the injured will meet the
ends of justice.

## Text

214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
I have heard both the sides.

3. In view of the statement made by
Smt. Santoshi she is allowed to go with
her husband Manoj Verma as the interest
of justice demands that the mother of two
infants who has expressed her deep desire
to live a happy life with her husband,
must be allowed to go and live with her
husband and children. The father Om
Prakash is hereby restrained not to
interfere into the marital life of Smt.
Santoshi and Manaj Verma.

4. This Habeas Corpus petition now
does not relate with two lives only but it
relates with the life of two young adult
persons and two very young infants, who
require all the love affection and caring of
both of their parents. In exercise of my
power
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, I direct the father
Om Prakalsh Gupta not to resort any
illegal means for the separation of couple.

5. It is stated that a criminal case has
been lodged against them which is
pending before CJM, Allahabad arising
out of Crime No. 359 of 2001, U/S 363,
366 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, district
Allahabad. In view of the order passed by
me today, I also quash the criminal
prosecution of Manoj Verma and Smt.
Santoshi arising out of aforesaid crime
number.

6. Smt. Santoshi and her husband
Manoj Venna are directed to get a
certified copy of this order and to appear
before the court of CJM Allahabad within
a period of one week from today. The
CJM, Allahabad will pass a order in
accordance this order and will close the
prosecution.

7. The SHO P.S. Civil Lines,
Allahabad is personally present in court
today. He is not needed to be present
further. His presence is exempted. Since I
have quashed the criminal prosecution of
Smt. Santoshi and her husband Manoj
Verma, no coercive measure, which has
been issued against them, shall be
executed against them.

Let a copy of this order be sent to
CJM,
Allahabad
for
his
intimation
forthwith.

 Petition disposed of.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4501 .Of 2006

Lok Bahadur and others ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri S.A. Saroj
Sri Mahesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S. 397 (1)-
Criminal Revision-offence under section
323/34 IPC-sentenced with six month
R.I. with 500/- fine-conviction order
passed in the year 1992-more than 14
years passed undoubtly the conviction
cemented by concurrent finding of factsrevisionist remained in jail for about one
month-nothing to suggest regarding any
mis happening by either side during this
period-conviction reduced to already
undergone with fine of Rs.4000/- on
each-payable
to
the
injured-revision
party allowed.
1 All] Lok Bahadur and others V. State of U.P. and another
215
Held: Para 8

I have considered the submissions of the
rival sides. This is admitted that the
incident occurred in the year 1992 and
fourteen years had lapsed since then and
that the revisionist do not have any bad
antecedent. No doubt their conviction is
cemented by the concurrent findings of
facts but after such a long gap of
fourteen years things must have settled
down a lot between the rival factions.
There is nothing on record to suggest
that any of sides did any thing after the
incident or made any complaint against
each other. The revisionist also remained
in jail for about a month as is clear from
the lower appellate court record which
indicates that after their conviction by
the trial court on 27.10.2004 they filed
appeal against the said conviction on
9.11.2004 on which date they were
ordered to be released on bail by the
lower appellate court. After dismissal of
their appeal by the lower appellate court
on 7.8.2006 they filed instant revision in
this
court
on
11.8.2006
and
on
18.8.2006 they were ordered to be
released on bail by this court. Their
actual release must have taken another a
week. Thus it seems that the revisionists
had remained in jail for more than a
month. In this view of the matter I
consider it appropriate that the sentence
for the period already under gone and a
compensation of Rs. Four thousand each
to be paid to the injured will meet the
ends of justice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists and learned AGA.

2. This revision is finally disposed
of in agreement with both the sides.

3. The revisionists have challenged
their convictions and sentences recorded
by A.C.J.M., Allahabad in case no. 6462
of 2002 State Vs. Lok Bahadur and
others, under Sections 325, 323, 504
I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, District Allahabad
relating to crime no. 166 of 1992 vide his
order dated 27.10.04. The trial court had
convicted the revisionists for offences
under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and had
sentenced them to six months Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-. It had allowed ten days time for
depositing the fine so awarded. Aggrieved
by aforesaid judgment of convictions and
sentences passed in the aforesaid case no.
6462 of 2002, the revisionists preferred an
appeal
before
the
Sessions
Judge,
Allahabad as Criminal Appeal No. 41 of
2004. Lok Bahadur and others Vs. State
of U.P. The said appeal was heard and
was dismissed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.5, Allahabad vide its
order dated 7.8.06. Hence this revision
challenging the said convictions and
sentences.

4. I have heard learned counsel for
the revisionists and learned AGA at a
great length and have gone through both
the impugned judgments.

5. So far as the merits of the matter
is concerned, learned counsel for the
revisionists fairly conceded that the
findings record by both the courts below
does not suffer from any illegality and
consequently he did not challenge the
merits of the matter at all. Hence so far as
conviction of the revisionists under
Section 323/34 I.P.C. is concerned, the
same is affirmed.

6. However, learned counsel for the
revisionists contended that the incident
had taken place as for back as in 1992 and
more than 14 years has lapsed and no
useful purposes will be served to send the
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
revisionists to jail at this belated stage.
Learned counsel for the revisionists
further contended that the revisionist had
remained in jail for 13 days after their
conviction by the trial court and they had
also remained in jail after the dismissal of
their appeal by the lower appellate court
and thus for nearly about a month or so
they had remained in jail. He also
contended that there is no bad antecedent
of the revisionist and they have no
criminal background. He also submitted
that the incident started all of a sudden at
the spur of moment without any pre
meditation and therefore there was total
absence of any mes-rea on the part of the
revisionists. He also submitted that the
revisionist had suffered a lot from 1992
till date and therefore their substantive
sentence be altered into fine.

7. Learned AGA on the other hand
contended that the sentence awarded to
the accused revisionists is not excessive
and they had caused as many as fourteen
inures to the injured Kirti Singh and
therefore no leniency should be shown to
the accused revisionists.

8. I have considered the submissions
of the rival sides. This is admitted that the
incident occurred in the year 1992 and
fourteen years had lapsed since then and
that the revisionist do not have any bad
antecedent. No doubt their conviction is
cemented by the concurrent findings of
facts but after such a long gap of fourteen
years things must have settled down a lot
between the rival factions. There is
nothing on record to suggest that any of
sides did any thing after the incident or
made any complaint against each other.
The revisionist also remained in jail for
about a month as is clear from the lower
appellate court record which indicates that
after their conviction by the trial court on
27.10.2004 they filed appeal against the
said conviction on 9.11.2004 on which
date they were ordered to be released on
bail by the lower appellate court. After
dismissal of their appeal by the lower
appellate court on 7.8.2006 they filed
instant revision in this court on 11.8.2006
and on 18.8.2006 they were ordered to be
released on bail by this court. Their actual
release must have taken another a week.
Thus it seems that the revisionists had
remained in jail for more than a month. In
this view of the matter I consider it
appropriate that the sentence for the
period
already
under
gone
and
a
compensation of Rs. Four thousand each
to be paid to the injured will meet the
ends of justice.

9. Hence this revision is party
allowed.
The
conviction
of
the
revisionists under section 323/34 IPC is
maintained but their sentences of six
months RI and a fine of Rs. Five hundred
each are reduced to the period already
under gone and each of them are further
directed to pay a compensation of Rs Four
thousand to the injured Kirti Singh totallying to Rs. Sixteen thousand in all.
The said amount of Rs. Sixteen thousand
shall be deposited by them with the trial
court to be paid to Kirti Singh injured by
the trial court. The revisionist are granted
three weeks time to deposit the said
amount of compensation with the trial
Magistrate who will give it to the injured
within a week of it's deposit with it. If the
revisionists fail to deposit the said
compensation within the time allowed to
them the trial court is directed to issue
non bailable warrant of arrest against
them and will send them to jail to serve
out the sentence awarded to them by it
vide it's order dated 27.10.2004. If the
1 All] Ajai Kumar V. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Spl. Judge and others
217
revisionist
deposit
the
compensation
amount within the stipulated period of
three weeks the trial court is directed to
discharge their sureties and personal
bonds.

10. With the above modification in
sentence the revision is party allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2006
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SHARMA, J.

Writ Petition No. 55607 of 2003

Ajai Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Km. Pratima Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.K. Misra
Sri N.K. Srivastava

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice
and Procedure-Restoration ApplicationMotor Accident claim Tribunal if found
merit in claim-refusal of restoration on
technical ground-held-highly unjust and
unfair.

Held: Para 6

Therefore, I am of the view that it will be
highly unjust and unfair if a claim which
is prima facie found to be valid for
consideration
by
the
Tribunal
is
dismissed in default and the restoration
application is also rejected on technical
or
hyper-technical
grounds.
The
Tribunal,
while
dealing
with
such
matters should not take such a technical
view to deny justice to an injured party,
vide
judgments
of
Apex
Court
as
reportcd in AIR 1969 SC 575 Sakuntala
Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari and others,
AIR 1972 SC 749 The State of West
Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah
Municipality and others, etc. and 1998
(2) JCLR 917 :: AIR 1998 SC 3222 N.
Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthv.
Case law discussed:
2003 AC-769
AIR 1969 SC-575
AIR 1972 SC-749
AIR 1998 SC-3222

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Pratima Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
K.K.Misra, holding brief for Sri N.K.
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
the National Insurance Company Limited,
respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
two orders passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Moradabad, one dated I.
10.2002 dismissing his claim petition in
default and the subsequent order dated
3.3.2003 rejecting the application for
recall of the order dated 1.10.2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the Tribunal has
exc1uded
from
consideration
the
submissions made in the application for
recall of the order dated 1.10.2002 and the
compelling circumstances under which
the petitioner could not pursue his case
before the Tribunal. As per petitioner,
there was no element of wilful or
deliberate avoidance in pursuing the case
before
the
Tribunal.
Several
circumstances, which were enumerated in
the application, were highlighted before
the Tribunal showing sufficient reasons to
recall the order but they were not taken
into consideration. The Tribunal ought to
have restored the claim petition and heard
it on merits. Learned counsel for the