# Rakesh Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 25
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-15
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 1277 of 2007
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-43084
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. Section 482-Offence under section
302/307 IPC-applicants seeking quashing of
order-rejecting application u/s 207 for
inspection of Maruti Car by prosecutionbefore
-committal
of
case-learned
Magistrate rightly taken view that car not
withing definition of 'document' under
Section
3
of
Evidence
Act-held
such
application nothing but to prolong the
proceeding-misconceived-rejected-direction
26
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to expedite disposal of case and to avoid
unnecessary adjournments.
Held: Para-13
In view of the above, this Court is of the
firm view that move of petitioners was
intended
to
prolong
the
proceedings
initiated against them and they have upto
some extent succeeded therein. As such
this application is misconceived one and
the same has rightly been rejected by the
learned Magistrate vide order impugned.

## Text

1 All]. Rakesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
25
itself carries a stigma by referring to the
fact that the respondent had been
impersonated at the written examination.
8. In this view of the matter, the order
of the learned Single Judge insofar as it
directs reinstatement of the respondent and
holds that the termination should have been
preceded by a full fledged disciplinary
enquiry, cannot be faulted. As the record
before the Court would indicate, the
termination of service was preceded by a
report of a forensic expert. The forensic
expert opined that the material produced
before
him
establishes
an
act
of
impersonation. In a disciplinary enquiry, if
this allegation is to be proved, the employee,
who was a probationer, would have an
opportunity of stating his defence and
rebutting the case of the Bank. But more
importantly, once it is evident from the order
of termination that the cancellation of
appointment was on account of a misconduct
allegedly committed by the respondent, a
disciplinary enquiry ought to have been held.
9.
However, on the issue of back
wages and other consequential benefits, we
are of the view that the learned Single
Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to
have taken due steps to structure the relief
so as to protect the public interest. We deem
it appropriate and proper to grant liberty to
the State Bank of India to hold a
disciplinary enquiry against the respondent
in accordance with law. The competent
authority would consider whether, in
accordance with the applicable service
rules, the respondent should be placed under
suspension
in
contemplation
of
a
disciplinary enquiry. We direct that the
Bank shall take a decision on whether it
intends to commence a disciplinary
proceeding against the respondent within
a period of three months of the receipt of
a certified copy of this order. In the event
that within the aforesaid period of three
months, the Bank decides to hold a
disciplinary
enquiry
against
the
respondent in terms as aforesaid, the
impugned direction of the learned Single
Judge for the payment of 50% back wages
and other consequential benefits, shall
stand set aside and the ultimate decision
in regard to the payment of the back
wages and other consequential benefits
shall
abide
by
the
result
of
the
disciplinary proceedings.
10.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMIINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.
U/S 482/378/407 No. 1277 of 2007
Rakesh Yadav & Anr.
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.
 Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicants:
Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, Sri Abhishek Ranjan
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Offence under section
302/307 IPC-applicants seeking quashing of
order-rejecting application u/s 207 for
inspection of Maruti Car by prosecutionbefore
-committal
of
case-learned
Magistrate rightly taken view that car not
withing definition of 'document' under
Section
3
of
Evidence
Act-held
such
application nothing but to prolong the
proceeding-misconceived-rejected-direction
26
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to expedite disposal of case and to avoid
unnecessary adjournments.
Held: Para-13
In view of the above, this Court is of the
firm view that move of petitioners was
intended
to
prolong
the
proceedings
initiated against them and they have upto
some extent succeeded therein. As such
this application is misconceived one and
the same has rightly been rejected by the
learned Magistrate vide order impugned.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra
Gupta, J.)
1.
By means of the present petition
under section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners
have prayed for quashing of the order
impugned dated 17.4.2007 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in
Criminal Case No. 98 of 2008 arising out of
case crime no. 537 of 2004 P.S. Khairabad,
District Sitapur, whereby the application
moved under section 207 Cr.P.C. has been
rejected holding that before committal of
case there is no provision for inspection by
to accused of the car in question.
2.
Petitioners are accused persons in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 537 of 2004, under
Sections 302,307 I.P.C., P.S. Khairabad
(State Vs. Udai Raj Singh and others). They
moved application under section 207 Cr.P.C.
before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sitapur praying therein that they may be
allowed to inspect the Maruti car which have
marks of firing and presently in supurdagi
(interim Custody) of deceased's wife under
the order of the learned Magistrate dated
24.3.2005 with conditions that as and when
the car is required, the same shall be
produced in court by her on its own
expenditure and during pendency of the case
she shall neither sale out nor transfer the car
to anyone nor change the shape of the car.
The possibility can not be ruled out that there
might be difference in between exact
position marks on the car and documents
furnished in this regard. So, they may be
permitted to inspect the car in question
before committal of case.
3. The learned Magistrate after
hearing the submissions rejected the
application moved under section 207
Cr.P.C by impugned order holding therein
that there is no provision under Section
207 Cr.P.C. for inspection of car in
question by the accused persons before
committal of case. It is a question of
evidence and if needed by the trial court
the car may be produced by the
prosecution.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the
impugned order, the petitioner challenged
the same in this petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. A co-ordinate bench of this
Court vide order dated 25.05.2007 stayed
the further proceedings of the court
below. Since then the proceedings of the
case are held up.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Dr. L. P. Mishra, Senior
Advocated assisted by Shri Hari Om
Bajpai,and learned A.G.A.
6.
It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners have right to get the inspection
of car before committal of case in view of
provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. If
inspection is denied shall cause serious
prejudice to the accused and the same shall
defeat the object of fair trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
7. On the contrary learned A.G.A.
submits
that
while
interpreting
the
1 All]. Rakesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
27
provisions under statute nothing could be
added or subtracted from the statutory
provision. The provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C.
are
simple,
clear
and
unambiguous. Therefore, the request
made by the accused-petitioners for
inspect of the car is misconceived and by
this petition the petitioners succeed in
achieving the goal of protracting the trial
for considerable long time. This Court
after exercising jurisdiction conferred
under section 482/483 Cr.P.C. may not
only dismiss this petition but also direct
that trial should be concluded within a
reasonable period as this court thinks fit.
8. Section 207 Cr.P.C. is extracted
herein below:----
"207. Supply to the accused of copy
of police report and other documents. In
any case where the proceeding has been
instituted
on
a
police
report,
the
Magistrate shall without delay furnish to
the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of
the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report
recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under
sub- section (3) of section 161 of all
persons whom the prosecution proposes
to examine as its witnesses, excluding
therefrom any part in regard to which a
request for such exclusion has been made
by the police officer under sub- section
(6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if
any, recorded under section 164;
(v)any other document or relevant
extract
thereof
forwarded
to
the
Magistrate with the police report under
sub- section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may,
after perusing any such part of a
statement as is referred to in clause (iii)
and considering the reasons given by the
police officer for the request, direct that a
copy of that part of the statement or of
such portion thereof as the Magistrate
thinks proper, shall be furnished to the
accused:
Provided
further
that
if
the
Magistrate is satisfied that any document
referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he
shall, instead of furnishing the accused
with a copy thereof, direct that he will
only be allowed to inspect it either
personally or through pleader in Court."
9. The perusal of Section 207
Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that
what should be supplied to the accused
before committal of case to the court of
Session in a case instituted on police
report. This section requires to furnish a
copy of police report, first information
report recorded under Section 154, the
statements recorded under Sub-section (3)
of Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all persons
whom
the
prosecution
proposes
to
examine as its witnesses, the confessions
and statements, if any, recorded under
Section 164 and any other document or
relevant extract thereof forwarded to the
Magistrate with the police report under
Sub-Section (5) of Section 173.
10. The provision of inspection is
given in second proviso to section 207,
which deals with power of Magistrate for
allowing
inspection.
It
categorically
provides that If the Magistrate is satisfied
that any document referred to in clause
(v) is voluminous, he shall allow the
accused or his pleader in court to inspect
it. Therefore, Section 207 restricts the
right of the accused to the extent of
furnishing copies of documents and
papers contained in Section 207 and not
28
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
beyond that, the inspection of document
may be permitted and not of material
which does not fall within the definition
of document.
11. Word "Document" has not been
defined
under
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure. The definition of 'document' is
given in Indian Evidence Act as well as in
Indian Penal Code. The definition of
document given in section 3 Evidence Act
is reproduced herein below:
"Section 3. Interpretation clause
"Document" --"Document" means any
matter expressed or described upon any
substance by means of letters, figures or
marks, or by more than one of those means,
intended to be used, or which may be used,
for the purpose of recording that matter."
The definition of document given in
section section 29 in IPC is quoted herein
below;
Section 29. "Document"
29.
"Document".--The
word
"document" denotes any matter expressed or
described upon any substance by means of
letters, figures or marks, or by more than one
of those means, intended to be used, or which
may be used, as evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1.--It is immaterial by
what means or upon what substance the
letters, figures or marks are formed, or
whether the evidence is intended for, or
may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not.
Illustrations
A writing expressing the terms of a
contract, which may be used as evidence
of the contract, is a document.
A cheque upon a banker is a
document.
A power-of-attorney is a document.
A map or plan which is intended to
be used or which may be used as
evidence, is a document.
A writing containing directions or
instructions is a document.
Explanation
2.--Whatever
is
expressed by means of letters, figures or
marks as explained by mercantile or other
usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by
such letters, figures or marks within the
meaning of this section, although the
same may not be actually expressed.
Illustration
A writes his name on the back of a
bill of exchange payable to his order. The
meaning of the endorsement, as explained
by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to
be paid to the holder. The endorsement is
a document, and must be construed in the
same manner as if the words"pay to the
holder" or words to that effect had been
written over the signature."
12. The definition in Evidence Act and
in Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that
document means any matter expressed or
described upon any such substance by means
of letter and figure or marked or by more than
one of those means which intent to be used or
which may be used for the purpose of
recording that matter. Therefore the matter
expressed or described upon the substance may
be a document but not that substance over
which the matter is expressed or described. It is
not denied that photographs of car were taken
and supplied to the accused petitioners.
13. In view of the above, this Court is
of the firm view that move of petitioners was
intended to prolong the proceedings initiated
against them and they have upto some extent
succeeded therein. As such this application is
misconceived one and the same has rightly
been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide
order impugned.
14. At this stage no interference is
warranted by this Court in the impugned
1 All]. Smt. Neelam & Ors. Vs. Nawab Ahamad & Ors.
29
order. The petition sans merits and is
liable to be dismissed.
15. While dismissing this petition
this Court with object to secure the ends
of justice issue following directions:-
16. That if the case has not yet been
committed to the court of Session be commit
by the concerned learned Magistrate within a
period of two weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
17. If the case has already been
committed to the Court of Session, the
learned Sessions Judge or any other Court
where trial is pending, shall expedite the
hearing of trial by strictly observing the
provisions contained in Section 309
Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case on
day to day basis.
18. The trial Court shall make an
endeavor to conclude the trial within a
period of six months from the date of
communication of this order.
19.
It is also made clear that learned
Magistrate or the trial court, as the case may
be, shall not grant any frivolous adjournments
to the accused petitioners. If the accused
persons try to prolong the proceedings by
seeking
unnecessary
adjournments,
the
coercive steps may be adopted against them
including cancellation of bail, if required.
20. The Office shall ensure that the
copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sitapur
and Sessions Judge Sitapur positively
within a period of 10 days from today.
The learned Magistrate and learned
Sessions Judge as the case may be, shall
comply with the order in letter and spirit.
21.
The Senior Registrar of the Court
shall ensure the compliance of this order.
22. In view of the above this petition
is dismissed with aforesaid directions.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 3392 of 2014
Smt. Neelam & Ors.
 Appellants
Versus
Nawab Ahamad & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
--
U.P. Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section221-readwith C.P.C. Order 47-Power of
review by accident claim Tribunal-except
the provisions contained under Section
221-no other provision of Civil code
applicable-review
being
creature
of
statute-in absence of power to reviewTribunal rightly rejected-no interference
in appeal required.
Held: Para-9
From the aforesaid, what emerges is that if
Statutory
Authority/Quasi
Judicial
Officer/Tribunal, does not have any express
power of review under the Statutes, the
subsequent
order
passed
by
it
recalling/modifying or reversing its earlier
order is nullity, as such order is non est and
void. Therefore, we are of the view that
there is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned award which is hereby confirmed.
Case Law discussed:
(2011) 4 SCC 750