# Revisionists v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39769
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section -
207 Framing of charges by Fast Track
Court
without
giving
the
copy
of
statement- despite of demand. Held not
proper- approach of the Court highly
deprecable.

Held - Para 5

In the circumstances, the accused is
entitled
to
the
statement
of
the
informant
(complainant),
who
is
a
material
witness
in
the
case.
The
approach of the trial court appears to be
extremely highhanded in not providing
that
statement
before
framing
the
charge. Such an approach is highly
deprecable and is not seen with any
compassion. The trial court is, there fore,
directed to act within the precinct of law
and be not unnecessarily arbitrary and
authoritative ignoring the provisions
law.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
162
4. Coming to the case of petitioner
no.1 Mewa Ram, who is said to have
passed his B.Ed. degree from Kumaun
University, Nainital in the year 2001. The
result of B.Ed. examination, according to
the assertion made by the petitioner was
declared before the month of July, 2001.
At that time the State of Uttaranchal has
come
into
existence,
therefore
the
petitioner can not claim that he has passed
his B.Ed. degree from an University
situated in State of U.P.. In this regard,
two factors are relevant to be kept in
mind, first that Kumaun University,
Nainital is still regulated and governed by
the provisions of U.P. State Universities
Act, 1975 and secondly in view of the law
laid down by this (sic) in the case of
Upendra Rai Versus State of U.P. and
others,
reported
in
2000
(Vol.2)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 1340, even assuming that
petitioner Mewa Ram has passed his
B.Ed. degree from an University outside
State of U.P., which is established under
law, his application form can not be
declared as not maintainable as this
condition has been held to be ultra vires
by the Division Bench of this Court in the
aforesaid case of Upendra Rai (supra). In
this view of the matter, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The respondents
are directed to accept and consider the
application forms of the petitioners for the
Special B.T.C. training and recruitment
pursuant to the advertisement for which
they have applied and their application
forms shall not be rejected only on the
ground that they have not passed their
B.Ed. degree course from an University
situated within the State of U.P.

With the aforesaid observations, the
writ petition is finally disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 3,2002

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

Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002

Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and another

 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri S.S. Tripathi
Sri A.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section -
207 Framing of charges by Fast Track
Court
without
giving
the
copy
of
statement- despite of demand. Held not
proper- approach of the Court highly
deprecable.

Held - Para 5

In the circumstances, the accused is
entitled
to
the
statement
of
the
informant
(complainant),
who
is
a
material
witness
in
the
case.
The
approach of the trial court appears to be
extremely highhanded in not providing
that
statement
before
framing
the
charge. Such an approach is highly
deprecable and is not seen with any
compassion. The trial court is, there fore,
directed to act within the precinct of law
and be not unnecessarily arbitrary and
authoritative ignoring the provisions
law.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned A.G.A.
1All] Suresh Kumar Upadhyay and another V. State of U.P. and another
163
2. The trial is pending before the fast
tract Court. Fast Tract does not mean
injustice to the accused. There is a
specific direction by this Court by its
order dated 3.12.2001 to supply a copy of
the statement of the complainant to the
accused before framing the charge. The
application filed on behalf of the accused
that his counsel has gone out to Lucknow
in connection with a marriage and will not
be available on the date on which the fast
Tract Court is framing charge. It was also
contended as a fact that copy of the
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
the complainant was not provided to him
as yet.

3. In the circumstances, the order
framing charge ought not to have been
passed by the trial court. The dispensation
of Justice should not be made post haste.
It must give an indication that justice is
being done not only for the sake of doing
it but also must appear to have been done
to the party, who is going to be affected
by this kind of dispensation of justice.
The trial court is, therefore, directed to
provide a copy of the statement of the
complainant for which he is entitled under
the law under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. It is a sessions trial. As a matter of
fact even the commitment could not be
made unless the papers under Section 207
are provided to the accused persons.
Section 207 (iii) Cr.P.C. provides as
under:

"(iii) the statements recorded under subsection (3) of Section 161 of all persons
whom
the
prosecution
proposes
to
examine as its witnesses, excluding there
from 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. "

5. In the circumstances, the accused
is entitled to the statement of the
informant
(complainant),
who
is
a
material witness in the case. The approach
of the trial court appears to be extremely
highhanded
in
not
providing
that
statement before framing the charge. Such
an approach is highly deprecable and is
not seen with any compassion. The trial
court is, therefore, directed to act within
the
precinct
of
law
and
be
not
unnecessarily arbitrary and authoritative
ignoring the provisions (sic) law.

6. In the circumstances adverted to
above, the trial court is directed to provide
the applicant a copy of the statement of
the informant within seven days. He will
also be afforded an opportunity of
amendment of charge, for which the
applicant shall make an application, if any
such change or amendment is felt
required. Before proceeding with the trial,
the trial court will look into that
application and after due application of
mind shall pass necessary orders.

With
these
observations,
this
revision-application is finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD DECEMBER 13, 2001

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14073 of 2000

Kari Naimuddin

...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
and others

 ...Respondents