# Revisionist v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 109
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No.1563 of 2004
- **Bench:** V.D. Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-another-40730
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 173
(B)-further
investigation-can
not
be
claimed as a matter of right by the
accused-where
the
charge
sheets
submitted after investigation-held-it is
sole discretion of magistrate.

Held: Para 6

The accused cannot claim as a matter of
right,
a
discretion
from
the
Court
commanding further investigation by
I.O. under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., after a
charge sheet has been filed after the
investigation.

## Text

1 All] Shaukat Rana V. State of U.P. and another
109
in a fiduciary capacity, the highest
degree of integrity and trustworthiness is
a must and exceptionable. Judge in that
background, conclusions of the Division
Bench of the High Court are not
proper."

17. In the case in hand the duty of
the workman concerned was to protect the
revenue of the Corporation by checking
that no passenger is traveling in the bus
without ticket and to issue tickets by
collecting fair from the person traveling in
the bus without ticket. He admittedly
failed in his duty when out of 50
passengers, 24 were found traveling
without ticket. The workman-conductor
of
the
bus
engaged
in
financial
transactions, was acting in fiduciary
capacity and was expected to show
highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness. He failed to satisfy the same.
In the circumstances merely for the
reasons that in the past no such
misconduct of the workman came to the
light of the employer, it could not have
been a ground to interfere with the
punishment, since the charge found
proved against the workman itself is
extremely
grave
and
serious.
The
observations of the Apex Court in Hoti
Lal (Supra) are fully applicable to the
facts of this case.

18. This Court is aware of the
circumstances that during the pendency of
the dispute the workman died and his
widow was pursuing the matter. This
aspect has also influenced the approach of
the Labour Court in interfering with the
quantum of punishment. However, in my
view this approach would show displaced
sympathy for the reasons that the
employer, if found his workman to be
guilty of such a grave and serious
misconduct,
and
decide
to
impose
punishment
of
removal,
for
any
subsequent event, it is not open to the
Labour Court or the Tribunal to interfere
with any such discretion exercised by the
employer since it cannot be said that the
discretion as exercised by the employer at
the time of dismissal was not justified.

19. In my view therefore, the Labour
Court erred in law in setting aside the
punishment of removal and by directing
for payment of 1/4th of arrears of salary
to the respondent no. 1.

20. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The award
impugned in the writ petition is set-aside
to the extent it interferes with the
punishment of removal imposed upon the
workman
concerned
and
direct
for
payment of 1/4th arrears of salary to the
respondent. The punishment of removal
as imposed upon the workman is up-held.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.D. CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Revision No.1563 of 2004

Shaukat Rana

...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Mohd. Aslam Ansari
Sri Mukhtar Alam

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Onkar Singh
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 173
(B)-further
investigation-can
not
be
claimed as a matter of right by the
accused-where
the
charge
sheets
submitted after investigation-held-it is
sole discretion of magistrate.

Held: Para 6

The accused cannot claim as a matter of
right,
a
discretion
from
the
Court
commanding further investigation by
I.O. under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., after a
charge sheet has been filed after the
investigation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.)

1. This revision has been flied by
Shaukat Rana, an accused of case crime
No. 169 of 1998, under section 302 I.P.C.,
against
the
order
dated
24.2.2004
whereby
the
learned
C.J.M.
Muzaffarnagar,
has
rejected
his
application for further Investigation.

2. None is present for the revisionist
even on the revision of the list. Sri Onkar
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 has been heard and the record of the
case has been perused.

3. The relevant facts are that the
complainant Sadakat lodged an F.I.R. at
Crime No. 169 of 1998 u/s 302 I.P.C. P.S.
Kotwali, district Muzaffamagar stating
therein that Shaukat Rana (revisionist)
and others had earlier committed the
murder of Sakhawat and Aslam by firing
at them and another; that the said case
was pending for evidence; that the
complainant's father was an eye witness
of the said occurrence; that the revisionist
and other co-accused were pressurising
the complainant's father Rifakat to make
compromise but the complainant's father
declined. Hence on3.5.1998 at 5:45 A.M.
Shaukat
Rana
(revisionist)
and
his
brothers met his father and Shaukat Rana
has
committed
the
murder
of
the
complainant's father by firing at him. The
local police conducted the Investigation
and submitted charge sheet against the
revisionist
and
others.
Later
the
investigation was conducted by the C.B.,
C.I.D.
under
the
orders
of
the
Government. The Investigating Officer of
C.B., C.I.D. ratified the charge sheet
submitted by the local police.

4. The learned Magistrate took the
cognizance and thereafter supplied the
necessary copies to the revisionist and
others. On 24.2.2004 the learned C.J.M.
was to commit the case to the Court of
Session but meanwhile the revisionist
moved an application u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
for further investigation, which was
rejected on reasons given by the C.J.M.
and he committed the case same day to
the Court of Session. Aggrieved by the
said order dated 24.2.2004 the accusedrevisionist Shaukat Rana has filed this
revision.

5. I have perused the impugned
order dated 24.2.2004, which goes to
show that the charge sheet by the local
police was submitted and thereafter C.B.,
C.I.D. conducted further investigation and
ratified the charge sheet. The learned
C.J.M. felt no need to pass an order for
further investigation hence rejected the
application.

6. The accused cannot claim as a
matter of right, a discretion from the
Court commanding further investigation
by I.O. under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.,
1 All] Rajneesh Shukla V. Union of India and others
111
after a charge sheet has been filed after
the investigation.

7. The power to pass an order for
further investigation is discretionary. This
discretion was properly exercised by
learned C.J.M. The learned C.J.M. has
exercised his discretion on reasons. I see
no illegality or incorrectness in the
impugned order warranting interference.

8. The revisionist was named in the
F.I.R .. The motive to commit the murder
was to pressurize the eye witness of a
murder case to give evidence in accused's
favour. When such witness declined, the
revisionist committed his murder. The
charge sheet submitted by the police was
ratified by the C.B., C.I.D.. Yet the
revisionist
filed
this
revision.
Unfortunately the trial remained stayed
for about two years due to the pendency
of this revision.

9. The revision is devoid of merits.
It is therefore dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5000/-
equally
payable
to
the
respondent nos. 1 and 2. The parties are
directed to put in their appearance in court
below on 22.11.2006. The trial court is
desired to expedite the trial as early as
possible.

Certify this order to the court below.

The interim order is hereby vacated.
Revision dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28603 of 2006

Rajneesh Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amitabh Tripathi
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. S.G. of India
Sri A.B.L. Gaur
Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Education-Cancelation of L.L.B. I year-Ist
semester examination-without disclosing
any evidence or material-used by the
petitioner-valuable years of petitioner's
lost without of his fault-cost of Rs. Five
Thousand imposed.

Held: Para 8

In the present case, for reasons best
known to the University authorities, an
order
cancelling
the
result
of
the
examination of the petitioner has been
passed without there being any evidence
or material on record to show that the
petitioner had used the material, or
could have used the same for answering
the questions in the examination. As
such, while allowing this writ petition, in
my view, the petitioner would also be
entitled to costs as he has, for no fault of
his, lost one valuable year of his
academic career. In my assessment, a
token cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five
thousand) should be imposed on the
University
authorities,
although
the
same
may
not
be
sufficient