# Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-10-12
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh, Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-42059
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure Code-Section
233-revisionist facing Trail for offence
under Section 27/273-applicant moved
application
for
getting
the
sample
analyzed
by
Director,
Central
Food
Laboratory-rejected-in
absence
of
specific provision-held-even in absence
of provision accused entitled to adduce
defence evidence-like prosecution who
relied the analysis report-treating liquor
unfit for human consumption-impugned
order
not
sustainable-consequential
directions issued.

Held: Para 6

The case is at the stage of defence
evidence. The defence evidence does not
mean that only oral evidence is to be
adduced. To get the sample analyzed by
a Laboratory and producing the report of
such analysis and examination of expert
in evidence is also part of defence
evidence. In these circumstances, even
though, there is no provision in Cr.P.C.
for sending the sample of liquor to
Director, Central Food Laboratory, there
is no bar either. The rights which are
available to the prosecution are also
available to the defence. Both the parties
have to be treated equally. In these
circumstances,
the
impugned
order
cannot be sustained and is liable to be
set-aside.

## Text

1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
was held to be valid in view of the
beneficial scheme of the Act.

10. Following the aforesaid
principle and the Division Bench
decision of this Court, I myself
dismissed First Appeal From Order No.
3337
of
2011
including
similar
question
vide
my
order
dated
12.10.2011.

11. In view of the aforesaid
decision, I find that there is no
substance in the present appeal and it is
liable to the dismissed.

12. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the
validity of such a direction upon the
Insurance Company to pay and recover
has been referred to a larger Bench by
the Supreme Court vide reference order
dated 31st August 2009 reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 785 National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni
and another is not of much relevance
as the said reference has not yet been
answered and the law as referred to
above holds the field as on date.

13. Accordingly, the appeal lacks
merit and is dismissed.

14. The statutory deposit made
before this Court shall be remitted to
the tribunal immediately for adjustment
towards payment of compensation to
the claimants.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH,J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2445 of 2010

Ashok Kumar Rai

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vashu Deo Misra
Sri Vinod Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-419application to quash charge sheet-as no
offence made out-applicants to move
discharge application-if moved within 30
days-shall
be
decided
under
the
provision of law-till disposal of such
applicant arrest stayed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.

2. This application has been filed
with a prayer to quash the charge sheet of
case crime No. 25 of 2009 under sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section
12 of Passport Act, P.S. Chhapiya,
District Gonda pending in the court of
learned C.J.M. Gonda in criminal case
No. 1539 of 2010.

3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that on the basis of the
allegations made against the applicant no
offence is made out, but without doing the
fair investigation the chargesheet has been
3 All] Nainapati V. State of U.P.
1181
submitted against the applicant, the same
may be quashed.

4. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that this
plea may be taken by the applicant by
way of moving the discharge application.

5. Considering the submissions,
made by learned counsel for the applicant
and learned A.G.A., it is directed that in
case
applicant
moves
discharge
application within 30 days from today
before the court concerned through his
counsel, the same shall be heard and
disposed of under the provisions of law.
Till the disposal of that application, the
applicant shall not be arrested.

6.

With
this
direction,
this
application is finally disposed of.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J.

Criminal Revision No. - 2614 of 2011

Nainapati

 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri B.N Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Code-Section
233-revisionist facing Trail for offence
under Section 27/273-applicant moved
application
for
getting
the
sample
analyzed
by
Director,
Central
Food
Laboratory-rejected-in
absence
of
specific provision-held-even in absence
of provision accused entitled to adduce
defence evidence-like prosecution who
relied the analysis report-treating liquor
unfit for human consumption-impugned
order
not
sustainable-consequential
directions issued.

Held: Para 6

The case is at the stage of defence
evidence. The defence evidence does not
mean that only oral evidence is to be
adduced. To get the sample analyzed by
a Laboratory and producing the report of
such analysis and examination of expert
in evidence is also part of defence
evidence. In these circumstances, even
though, there is no provision in Cr.P.C.
for sending the sample of liquor to
Director, Central Food Laboratory, there
is no bar either. The rights which are
available to the prosecution are also
available to the defence. Both the parties
have to be treated equally. In these
circumstances,
the
impugned
order
cannot be sustained and is liable to be
set-aside.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. )

1. This revision under section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is directed against order
dated 30.6.2011 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge (Ex-Cadre), Court No.1,
Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No.212
of 2010, State Vs. Nainapati under
section 60 Excise Act and sections 272 /
273
IPC,
P.S.
Konch,
whereby
application of the accused-revisionist
for taking another sample from the case
property and sending it to another
expert was rejected.

2. The revisionist is facing trial
under sections 272 / 273 IPC for
possessing illicit liquor, which was
found by the Public Analyst to be
injurious to health and unfit for human