# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and others Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 499
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-04-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.K. Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-opp-parties-40952
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Criminal
Revision-MaintainabilityRevisionist
neither
complainant-nor
witnesses-but the real daughter of the
deceased-Additional
Session
Judge
rightly set-a-side the judgment and
directed the Trail Court for fresh Trailheld-even
if
the
revision
filed
by
stranger-Revisional Court can suo-moto
exercise
power
of
Revision-direction
issued by Session Judge warrant no
interference.

Held: Para 8
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
It is true that the opposite party no. 2
and 3 according to the charge sheet filed
are neither the complainant of the case,
nor
the
eye
witnesses,
they
are
daughters of Mata Prasad who died in
the occurrence. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Fad Regan Vs. S.S.R.
Beluswami 2003 Dand Nirnay Sangrah
908 has observed that the revisional
court suo motto can exercise the power
of revision and if the revision has been
filed by the stranger to the case, it would
make no difference.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-1788
SSRB-2003 Dand Niray Sangrah 908

## Text

2 All] Suresh Prasad Tripathi V. The Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others
499
by the definition of industrial dispute and
the reference should be answered against
the workman. The labour court after
considering the material on record and the
evidence adduced before it has arrived at
the conclusion that employer U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti is not covered by
the definition of an industry and therefore
Suresh Prasad Tripathi is not a workman,
it therefore decided the preliminary
objection raised by the employer in favour
of the employer and held that the
reference is not maintainable. Against this
award,
the
petitioner-workman
filed
present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-workman submitted that the
view taken by the labour Court that U.P.
,Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti constituted
under the provisions U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 is not an
industry, is :not correct. In support of his
contention,
learned
counsel
for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of this
Court reported in 2002 (2) A.W.C., 1637Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
and another Vs. Prescribed Authority,
Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P., Meerut
and another and 1997 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C.,
830 - Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Anand Nagar, District Gorakhpur Vs.
Industrial
Tribunal
(II).
U.P.
at
Lucknow and another wherein this
Court has held that Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti constituted under the provisions of
U.P.
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
samiti
Adhiniyam, 1964 is an industry and
therefore the petitioner working with the
employer is covered by the definition of
the workman. In view of the legal
preposition laid down by this Court in the
cases, referred to above, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The award of the labour Court
dated 23rd November, 1984 is quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the labour
Court with the direction to decide afresh
on merits in accordance with law and in
the light of the observations made in this
judgement within a period of six months'
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy ·of this order before it.
Petition allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006

Rajua alias Raju

 Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and others Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri I.K. Chaturvedi

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

Criminal
Revision-MaintainabilityRevisionist
neither
complainant-nor
witnesses-but the real daughter of the
deceased-Additional
Session
Judge
rightly set-a-side the judgment and
directed the Trail Court for fresh Trailheld-even
if
the
revision
filed
by
stranger-Revisional Court can suo-moto
exercise
power
of
Revision-direction
issued by Session Judge warrant no
interference.

Held: Para 8
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
It is true that the opposite party no. 2
and 3 according to the charge sheet filed
are neither the complainant of the case,
nor
the
eye
witnesses,
they
are
daughters of Mata Prasad who died in
the occurrence. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Fad Regan Vs. S.S.R.
Beluswami 2003 Dand Nirnay Sangrah
908 has observed that the revisional
court suo motto can exercise the power
of revision and if the revision has been
filed by the stranger to the case, it would
make no difference.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-1788
SSRB-2003 Dand Niray Sangrah 908

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.)

1. Present Criminal Revision has
been filed against the judgement and
order dated·30.8.2005, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)
Court III. Court No. 8, Banda in criminal
revision no. 9 of 2005, Km. Gudiya and
another Vs. Rajua @ Raju and another
whereby the learned Sessions Judge set
aside the judgement and order dated
19.10.2005 passed by learned I ACJM
Banda in criminal case no. 3358/1X/03,
State Vs. Rajua @ Raju under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304 A I.P.C. and
remanded the case for fresh trail after
summoning the injured witness Angad
and other prosecution witnesses.

2. I have heard learned counsel for
the revisionist Sri I.K. Chaturvedi and the
learned AGA. None appeared for opposite
party no.2 and 3.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has contended that opposite
party no. 2 and 3 had no locus standi to
file criminal revision before the Sessions
Judge against the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned I Add!.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. The
opposite party no. 2 and 3 were neither
complainant in the case, nor they were the
witnesses of the occurrence for which the
revisionist has faced trial The learned
counsel further contended that no revision
lies against the order of acquittal before
the Sessions Judge.

4. The learned AGA submitted that
the learned I ACJM, vide judgement and
order dated 19.10.2004 passed in criminal
case no. 3358/IX/2003 on the date of
appearance of the accused i.e.18.10.2004
after recalling the bailable warrant of the
accused recorded the statement accused
and
without
giving
any
further
opportunity to the prosecution to adduce
evidence recorded the statement of PW 1
Daya Ram and the counsel for the
accused dispensed with the formal proof
of the documents of the prosecution. PW
1 Daya Ram was declared hostile as he
did not support the prosecution story, thus
he passed judgement and order dated
19.10.2004 in a most cryptic manner and
the learned Sessions Judge committed no
illegality in remanding the case to the
learned Magistrate for fresh trial after
summoning the witnesses.

I
have
given
my
thoughtful
consideration
to
the
respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.

5. It is revealed from the perusal of
the record that the learned ACJM on the
date of appearance of the accused recalled
his warrant, thereafter recorded the
statement of the accused and after the
learned counsel for the accused dispensed
with the formal proof of the documents of
the prosecution, recorded the statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
2 All] Rajua @ Raju V. State of U.P. and others
501
passed the judgement and order dated
19.10.2004. Thus, the learned ACJM did
not give opportunity to the prosecution to
summon the remaining witnesses. From
perusal of the FIR of the case, it appears
that one Angad was also injured in the
occurrence. Chandra Shekhar had also
witnessed
the
occurrence
but
no
opportunity was given by the learned
Magistrate to the prosecution to summon
these two witnesses.

6. It is also revealed that the
opposite party no. 1 and 2 are the
daughters of Mata Prasad, who died in the
occurrence.

7. In the case of Chaina Swami Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 S.C.
1788, the Apex Court has observed that
the revisional court shall not ordinarily
interfere
against
the
judgement
of
acquittal but if the judgement of acquittal
has been recorded without examination of
the important witness and no effort was
made to obtain their presence, the
revisional court shall be justified to
interfere while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction against an order of acquittal.

8. It is true that the opposite party
no. 2 and 3 according to the charge sheet
filed are neither the complainant of the
case, nor the eye witnesses, they are
daughters of Mata Prasad who died in the
occurrence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Fad Regan Vs. S.S.R. Beluswami
2003 Dand Nirnay Sangrah 908 has
observed that the revisional court suo
motto can exercise the power of revision
and if the revision has been filed by the
stranger to the case, it would make no
difference.

9. Keeping in view the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme court I am of
the opinion that revision filed by opposite
party no. 2 and 3, who are daughters of
deceased Mata Prasad was maintainable.
It is also clear from the foregoing
discussions that the learned Magistrate
committed illegality in not affording any
opportunity to the prosecution to produce
injured
witness
Angad
and
other
witnesses and in concluding trial on the
date of appearance of the accused. I,
therefore, find that this revision is devoid
of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37482 of 2006

Sushil Kumar Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Gupta
Sri Manoj Kumar
Sri K.R. Sirohi
S.C.
U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Inferior
Establishment
Rules
1955-Section
4
(a)Discretionary Power of District Judge
has to be exercised with conformity of
Article 14 and 16 of the constitutionappointment
made
without
advertisement-amount to denied of fair
and equal chance to all other eligible
candidates-held-illegal
can
not
sustained.

Held: Para 25