# Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 548
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 11344 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-yasir-ali-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52397
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - UP Revenue Code, 2006
- Ss. 35 and 210 - Mutation proceeding
u/s 35 (2) - Maintainability of writ was
raised on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy of revision u/s 210
against an order passed in an appeal
arising out of mutation order - Held, mere
fact that there is no further appeal against
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer in an appeal u/s 35(2) cannot
warrant an inference that the legislature
intended in any way to limit or control the
revisional jurisdiction conferred on the
Commissioner u/s 210 of the Code - The
order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
in appeal u/s 35(2), against which there is
no further appeal, would be subject to the
revisional powers of the Commissioner to
be exercised u/s 210. (Para 31 and 38)

Writ disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Islamic Academy (supra) had stated that
the fee shall be determine 6 months in
advance and despite the said directions the
Committee has not determined the fee for
the academic session 2024-25, despite the
fact that the counselling is about to
commence, which clearly amounts to
defiance of the orders of this Court and
hence they are liable to be proceeded for
contempt, but after due consideration this
Court is of the view that the end of justice
in the present case would be met by
directing the Chief Secretary, Government
of U.P. to conduct an enquiry against the
persons
responsible
for
delay
in
constitution of the Fee Fixation Committee
and also with regard to the failure of the
Committee to make determination of fee as
mandated by the Act of 2006. Let the
enquiry be concluded within a period of 2
months, and a copy shall be forwarded to
this Court through its Senior Registrar. We
again caution the State Government as well
as the Fee Fixation Committee to proceed
to determine the fee well in advance for the
next session failing which they shall be
liable to be proceeded in contempt.

57. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 548
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 11344 of 2024

Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Archana Singh, Sri Shreeprakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri Vikrant
Gupta

A.
Revenue
law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - UP Revenue Code, 2006
- Ss. 35 and 210 - Mutation proceeding
u/s 35 (2) - Maintainability of writ was
raised on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy of revision u/s 210
against an order passed in an appeal
arising out of mutation order - Held, mere
fact that there is no further appeal against
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer in an appeal u/s 35(2) cannot
warrant an inference that the legislature
intended in any way to limit or control the
revisional jurisdiction conferred on the
Commissioner u/s 210 of the Code - The
order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
in appeal u/s 35(2), against which there is
no further appeal, would be subject to the
revisional powers of the Commissioner to
be exercised u/s 210. (Para 31 and 38)

Writ disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jhinka Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2022 (7)
ADJ 31

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. N.
Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel
appearing alongwith Sri Abhishek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
for the State-respondents and Sri Arvind
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent
No.5.

2. The present petition has been
filed primarily seeking to assail the order
8 All. Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
dated 13.07.2023, passed by the
respondent No. 3, the Naib Tehsildar,
Panwadia, Tehsil Sadar, Rampur, in Case
No. 35 of 2023, in proceedings under
Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
20061, and the subsequent order dated
04.12.2023, passed by the respondent No.
2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Sadar, Rampur, in Case No. 3689 of 2023,
an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code,
whereby the earlier order has been
affirmed.

3. Counsel appearing for the State
respondents and also the counsel appearing
for the respondent No. 5, have raised an
objection with regard to the entertainability
of the writ petition by pointing out that the
order passed in appeal, under Section 35(2)
of the Code, would be subject to the
statutory remedy of a revision under
Section 210 of the Code.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has sought to refute the aforesaid
objection by seeking to urge that the
remedy of a revision under Section 210 is
available only in a situation where no
appeal lies, and in the instant case since the
petitioner is seeking to assail an order
passed in an appeal under sub-section (2) of
Section 35, the remedy of revision would
not be available.

5. The question which therefore arises
for consideration in the present case is as to
whether an order passed in an appeal under
sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Code,
would be subject to the remedy of a
revision under Section 210 of the Code.

6. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions, the relevant statutory provisions
under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would
be required to be adverted to.
7. The provisions with regard to
mutation, as contained under Sections 33, 34
and 35 of the Code, are being extracted
below:

"33.
Mutation
in
cases
of
succession.-(1) Every person obtaining
possession of any land by succession shall
submit report of such succession to the
Revenue Inspector of the circle in which the
land is situate in such form as may be
prescribed.

(2) On receipt of a report under
sub-section (1) or on facts otherwise coming
to his knowledge, the Revenue Inspector shall
-
 (a) if the case is not disputed,
record such succession in the record of rights
(Khatauni);
 (b) in any other case, make such
inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary
and submit his report to the Tehsildar.
 (3) Any person whose name has
not been recorded by Revenue Inspector or
who is aggrieved by the order passed by the
Revenue Inspector under clause (a) or (b) of
sub-section (2) may move an application
before Tehsildar.
 (4) The provisions of this section
shall mutatis mutandis apply to every
person admitted as a Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights or as an asami by the
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in accordance
with the provisions of this Code or any
enactment repealed by it.

34. Duty to report in cases of
transfer.-(1) Every person obtaining
possession of any land by transfer, other
than transfer referred to in sub-section (3)
of Section 33 shall report such transfer, in
the manner prescribed, to the Tehsildar of
the Tahsil in which the land is situate.

Explanation.-For the purposes
of this section, the word transfer includes a
family settlement.
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) State Government may fix a
scale of fees for getting entry recorded in
the record of rights on the basis of transfer.
A fee in respect of any such entry shall be
payable by the person in whose favour the
entry is to be made.

35.
Mutation
in
cases
of
succession or transfer.-(1) On the
receipt of a report under Section 33 or
Section 34, or upon facts otherwise coming
to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall issue
a proclamation and make such inquiry as
appears to be necessary and -
 (a) if the case is not disputed, he
shall direct the record of rights (Khatauni)
to be amended accordingly;
(b) [***]
 (c) if the case is disputed, he shall
decide the dispute and direct, if necessary,
the record of rights (khatauni) to be
amended accordingly.
 (2) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Tahsildar under sub-section (1)
may prefer an appeal to the Sub-Divisional
Officer within a period of thirty days from
the date of such order."

8. The power to call for the
records, conferred on the Board of
Revenue2 or the Commissioner, in respect
of any suit or proceedings decided by any
subordinate revenue court, is provided for
under Section 210 of the Code. Section 210
of the Code, as it originally stood, is as
follows :-

 "210 Power to call for the
records.―The Board or the Commissioner
may call for the record of any suit or
proceeding decided by any sub-ordinate
revenue court in which no appeal lies, or
where an appeal lies but has not been
preferred, for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself as to the legality or
propriety of any order passed in such suit
or proceeding; and if such subordinate
court appears to have -
(a) exercised a jurisdiction
not vested in it by law; or
(b) failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) acted in the exercise of
such jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity;

the Board, or the Commissioner,
as the case may be, may pass such order in
the case as it or he thinks fit.
 (2) If an application under this
section has been moved by any person
either to the Board or to the Commissioner,
no further application by the same person
shall be entertained by the other of them.
 (3) No application under this
section shall be entertained after the expiry
of a period of thirty days from the date of
the order sought to be revised or from the
date of commencement of this Code,
whichever is later."

9. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006 was amended in terms of the
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code (Amendment)
Act, 2016 [U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016]. The
amendment made to Section 210 in the
amending Act of 2016, was as follows :-

"162. Amendment of Section
210.─ In Section 210 of the said Code─

 (a) for the figures and words
"210. The Board" the figures, brackets and
words "210. (1) The Board" shall be
substituted.
 (b) in sub-section (1), the words
and punctuation mark "or where an appeal
lies but has not been preferred," shall be
omitted;
 (c) after sub-section (2) and
before sub-section (3), the following
explanation shall be inserted, namely ─
8 All. Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551

Explanation.─ For the removal of
doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an
application under this section has been
moved either to the Board or to the
Commissioner, the application shall not be
permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose
of filing the application against the same
order to the other of them.

(d) in sub-section (3), for the
words "thirty days" the words "sixty days"
shall be substituted."

10. The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
was subject to further amendments made in
terms of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 2019 [U.P. Act No. 7 of
2019], which was deemed to come into
force on March 10, 2019.

11. There was some inconsistency
in the Hindi version of the language of
Section 210 inasmuch as the words used in
sub-Section (1) where "कोई अपीि नहीं हुई" as
against the language in the English version
which was "in which no appeal lies". The
aforesaid inconsistency was removed by
making suitable amendment in the Hindi
version of Section 210 of the principal Act
by providing as follows :-

 "19. In Section 210 of the
principal Act, in the Hindi version, in subsection (1) for the words "कोई अपीि नहीं हुई"
the words "कोई अपीि नहीं हो सकती" shall be
substituted."

12. Section 210, consequent to the
amendment made as per the terms of the
U.P. Act No. VII of 2019, stands as under:

"210 Power to call for the
records.-(1)
The
Board
or
the
Commissioner may call for the record of
any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal
lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the legality or propriety of
any order passed in such suit or proceeding,
and if such subordinate Court appears to
have -
(a) exercised a jurisdiction
not vested in it by law; or
(b) failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) acted in the exercise of
such jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity;
 the Board, or the Commissioner,
as the case may be, may pass such order in
the case as it or he thinks fit.
 (2) If an application under this
section has been moved by any person
either to the Board or to the Commissioner,
no further application by the same person
shall be entertained by the other of them.

Explanation.- For the removal of
doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an
application under this section has been
moved either to the Board or to the
Commissioner, the application shall not be
permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose
of filing the application against the same
order to the other of them.

(3) No application under this
section shall be entertained after the expiry
of a period of sixty days from the date of
the order sought to be revised or from the
date of commencement of this Code,
whichever is later."

13. The principal submission
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, in regard to the question
involved, is that the remedy of revision
under Section 210 of the Code is available
only in a case in which no appeal lies, and
therefore since sub-section (2) of Section
35 provides for an appeal against an order
of mutation passed under sub-section (1)
thereof, there would be no further remedy
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a revision available thereagainst under
Section 210 of the Code. It is thus sought to
be urged that the order passed in an appeal
under Section 35(2), would be final with no
statutory remedy being available against
the said order.

14. Controverting the aforesaid
submission, the learned Chief Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
State
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
restriction contained under Section 210
providing for the remedy of a revision only
in a case 'in which no appeal lies', would
not be attracted since the question under
consideration is in regard to the availability
of the remedy of a revision against the
order passed in appeal under sub-section
(2) of Section 35, against which no further
appeal lies. To support this argument,
reliance has been placed upon a recent
decision of this Court, in the case of
Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4
Others3

15. Attention of the Court has
been drawn to the Third Schedule of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to point out that
in respect of proceedings relating to
mutation cases under Section 35, the order
of
the
Tehsildar
exercising
original
jurisdiction is subject to an appeal before
the Sub Divisional Officer, and there is no
provision with regard to a further second
appeal. It is therefore contended that since
no further appeal lies against the appellate
order of the Sub Divisional Officer under
sub-section (2) of Section 35, the remedy
of a statutory revision under Section 210,
would not be barred.

16. Counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 5 has also made his
submissions on similar lines.

17. Rival contentions now fall for
consideration.

18. Section 210, as it stands after
the amendment brought about by the U.P.
Act No. 4 of 2016, empowers the Board or
the Commissioner to call for the record of
any suit or proceedings decided by any
subordinate revenue court 'in which no
appeal lies' for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of any
order passed in such suit or proceedings.

19.

The
Board
or
the
Commissioner, may pass such order in the
case as it thinks fit, if the subordinate court
appears to have -

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law; or
 (b)
failed
to
exercise
a
jurisdiction so vested; or
 (c) acted in the exercise of such
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity.

20. It would therefore be seen that
under Section 210, the Board or the
Commissioner, may exercise the power to
call for the record of any suit or
proceedings decided by any subordinate
revenue
court,
under
the
following
conditions :-

 (i) where no appeal lies; and
 (ii) the subordinate court appears
to have ─
 (a) exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law; or
 (b)
failed
to
exercise
a
jurisdiction so vested; or
 (c) acted in the exercise of such
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity.
8 All. Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
 The Board or the Commissioner,
as the case may be, may thereafter pass
such order in the case as it or he thinks fit.

21. A plain reading of the
aforesaid provisions may lead to a possible
argument that the remedy of a revision
under Section 210 being available only in a
case where no appeal lies, the order passed
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, under
sub-section (2) of Section 35, would not be
revisable under Section 210 of the Code.

22. The aforesaid together with the
argument regarding the order passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer under sub-section
(2) of Section 35, having a finality attached
to it as regards mutation proceedings,
would be required to be examined in the
context of the provisions under Section 210
and the overall scheme of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

23. Under the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, the expression 'Revenue Court', has
been defined under Section 4(16), as
meaning all or any of the following
authorities, that is to say, the Board and
all members thereof, Commissioners,
Additional Commissioners, Collectors,
Additional
Collectors,
Assistant
Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant
Settlement Officers, Record Officers,
Assistant Record Officers, Tahsildar and
Naib-Tahsildar.

24. The term "Revenue Officer"
has been defined under Section 4 (17) of
the Code to mean the Commissioner, an
Additional Commissioner, the Collector,
an
Additional
Collector,
the
SubDivisional
Officer
and
Assistant
Collector,
Settlement
Officer,
an
Assistant Settlement Officer, Record
Officer, an Assistant Record Officer, the
Tahsildar, Tahsildar (Judicial), the NaibTahsildar or the Revenue Inspector.

25. A conjoint reading of the
definitions
of
the
aforesaid
terms
"Revenue Court" and "Revenue Officer"
would indicate that some persons who act
as Revenue Courts also act as Revenue
Officers ─ where a Revenue Officer deals
with judicial matters in revenue, he acts
as a Revenue Court, which is under the
control and supervision of the Board of
Revenue; on the other hand, where a
Revenue Officer deals with non-judicial
matters in revenue, he acts under the
control and supervision of the State
Government.
The
functions
of
the
Revenue Officer regarding the land
revenue administration may be classified
as judicial and non-judicial depending on
the
nature
of
the
functions
being
discharged.

26. Section 234 (1) (v) of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now repealed)
empowered the State Government to define
the matters or proceedings which were
deemed to be judicial or non-judicial. In
terms of the aforestated provision, para 911
of the Revenue Manual, provided for
certain matters to be deemed to be judicial.
This included cases relating to mutation in
matters relating to succession or transfer
under Sections 35 and 40 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901.

27. The Board of Revenue
constituted under Section 7 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, as per Section 8
thereof, is to be the chief controlling
authority in all matters relating to disposal
of cases, appeals or revisions. The
revisional jurisdiction is provided under
Section 210 of the Code, and in terms
thereof the Board or the Commissioner, as
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case may be, would be empowered to
exercise revisional jurisdiction by calling
for the record of any suit or proceedings
decided by any subordinate court, in which
no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of any
order passed in such suit or proceedings,
provided the conditions laid down under
clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (1) of the section are satisfied. The
language of the section is one of wide
amplitude and embraces within its fold all
cases decided by courts subordinate to the
court.

28. Section 210 whereunder the Board
or the Commissioner is empowered to call
for the records of any suit or proceedings
"decided" by any "subordinate revenue
court", indicates the legislative intent that a
revision
would
lie
against
judicial
adjudications of suits and proceedings;
administrative proceedings conducted by
those very authorities being not within the
purview of Section 210.

29. The Tehsildar exercising
powers under Section 35, in cases of
mutation, on the basis of succession or
transfer, if the case is disputed, is
empowered to 'decide the dispute' as per
terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 35, and the order passed by the
Tehsildar, under sub-section (1) of Section
35, is subject to an appeal under subsection (2), before the Sub Divisional
Officer. The provisions contained under
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of
Section 35, leave no room for doubt that
Tehsildar and also the Sub Divisional
Officer
exercising
powers
thereunder
discharge judicial functions.

30. The Tehsildar while deciding a
dispute regarding mutation in cases of
succession or transfer, in exercise of powers
under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the
Code, acts as a 'Revenue Court' within the
meaning of Section 4(16) of the Code. The
Sub Divisional Officer while deciding an
appeal under sub-section (5), against an order
passed by the Tehsildar under sub-section (1)
also acts as a 'Revenue Court' and as such
would be a Court subordinate to the
Commissioner and subject to its revisional
jurisdiction.

31. The revisional jurisdiction under
Section 210, in order to subserve its purpose,
would have to be seen not as a mere power
but also a duty, which cannot be effectively
discharged
unless
the
Board
or
the
Commissioner see to it that the subordinate
revenue courts exercise their jurisdiction in
accordance with law. The mere fact that there
is no further appeal against the order passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer in an appeal
under sub-section (2) of Section 35 cannot
warrant an inference that the legislature
intended in any way to limit or control the
revisional jurisdiction conferred on the
Commissioner, under Section 210 of the
Code.

32. Section 210 is essentially a
source of power for the Board of Revenue or
the
Commissioner
to
supervise
the
subordinate revenue courts. The jurisdiction
conferred under Section 210 to revise the
orders passed by the subordinate revenue
courts would not be dependant on a motion
being made by a party to the case inasmuch
as the section confers power to exercise
revisional jurisdiction independent of any
such motion having been made. The
revisional jurisdiction under section 210 is
designed to confer a wide power on the
Board or the Commissioner to call for records
and supervise the correctness of the
proceedings subject to certain conditions.
8 All. Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
33. The order of the Sub
Divisional Officer passed in exercise of
powers under sub-section (2) of Section 35
is an order in appeal against the order of the
Tehsildar passed under sub-section (1) of
Section 35, and this order is not subject to
any second appeal under the Code. This is
further clear from a reading of the Third
Schedule of the Code wherein in respect of
the provisions contained under Section 35
relating to mutation cases the court of
original jurisdiction has been specified in
column 3 as the court of Tehsildar and the
court of first appeal is mentioned in column
4 as the court of Sub Divisional Officer;
further column 5 pertaining to the second
appeal is left blank. This goes to show that
against the order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer in appeal under subsection (2) of Section 35, against the order
of the Tehsildar acting as a court of original
jurisdiction
under
sub-section
(2)
of
Section 35, there is no provision of a
second appeal.

34. There being no provision
under the Code for a second appeal against
the order of the Sub Divisional Officer
passed under sub-section (2) of Section 35,
it can be said that against the order of the
Sub Divisional Officer in appeal, no further
appeal lies, and therefore the necessary
condition for invocation of the powers of
the Commissioner under Section 210 for
calling
the
records
and
exercising
revisional powers against the order passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal
under sub-section (2) of Section 35, stands
fulfilled.

35. Taking a similar view, this Court
in the case of Jhinka Devi Vs. State of
U.P. And 4 Others4, had held that an order
passed in an appeal under Section 24(4) of
the Revenue Code would be revisable
under Section 210, and the finality attached
to the said order would only be to the
extent that there is no further appeal
thereagainst.

36. A rule of construction, spoken of
as, ex visceribus actus, helps in avoiding
any inconsistency either within a section or
between
two
different
sections
or
provisions of the same statute. It essentially
means that every part of a statute must be
construed within its four corners and no
provision should be interpreted in isolation.

37. Craies on Statute Law5 has
explained the rule of ex visceribus actus by
stating as follows :-

"...there is a general rule of
construction applicable to all statutes alike,
which is spoken of as construction ex
visceribus actus― within the four corners
of the Act. "The office of a good expositor
of an Act of Parliament," said Coke in the
Lincoln College Case6, "is to make
construction on all parts together, and not
of one part only by itself―Nemo enim
aliquam partem recte intelligere potest
antequam totum iterum atque iterum
perlegerit." And again he says : It is the
most natural and genuine exposition of a
statute to construe one part of a statute by
another part of the same statute, for that
best expresseth the meaning of the
makers.... and this exposition is ex
visceribus actus."

38. It would therefore follow as a
necessary consequence that the order
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in
appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 35,
against which there is no further appeal,
would be subject to the revisional powers
of the Commissioner to be exercised under
Section 210.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
39. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion, the objection raised on behalf
of the State respondents and also the
respondent No. 5, with regard to the
availability of a statutory remedy against
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer in an appeal under sub-section (2)
of Section 35 of the Code, is sustained.

40. The writ petition is not entertained
for the reason of existence of an alternative
statutory remedy.

41. The petition stands disposed
of leaving it open to the petitioner to take
recourse
to
the
statutory
alternative
remedy.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 1685 of 2020
With
Application U/s 482 No. 292 of 2021

Ram Sunder Shukla & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Utsav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section 228, The Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 307 & 308- The
charge could be altered during trial at any
time
and
at
any
stage
before
the
judgment is passed. As such, even a
charge under Section 307 is framed the
accused
have
still
liberty
to
raise
submission that, on basis of the evidence
led before the learned Trial Court no
offence could be made out under Section
307 IPC- The applicants will have a liberty
to
raise
all
the
legally
permissible
arguments at the appropriate stage that
on the basis of the evidence, which is still
to be led before the learned Trial Court, no
offence is made out under Section 307 or
308 IPC. (Para 12 & 14)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

St.of Guj. Vs Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC
OnLine 1294

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The applicants have approached
this Court, by way of filing application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (1685 of 2020)
arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2017
(S.T. No. 628 of 2018), State v. Ram
Sunder Shukla and others, under Sections
307, 323, 325, 308 and 506 IPC, Police
Station-
Handia,
District-
Prayagraj,
pending in the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Room No. 9, Allahabad, as
they are aggrieved by impugned order
dated 25.03.2019 whereby their discharge
application was rejected. The other petition
is arising out of a challenge to framing of
charges.

2. From the records, it is evident
that an FIR was lodged against applicants
that they have committed offences under
Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC. For
reference, the contents of FIR is reproduced
hereinafter:

"प्राथी जगदम्िा प्रसाद र्ुक्ि S/O
मुरिीिर बनवासी पूरेघीसा (िजहा बमश्रान) थाना