# Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 89
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-13
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16258 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanni-mishra-sanjayan-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49557
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section-3(1) - The U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(3)(a) , 8(3) , 16 ,
16(2) , 16(3) , 17 ,17(2) , 18 , 22(3) - The
Constitution of India - Article-21 -
personal liberty - Provision of this Act are
stringent
and
are
required
to
be
interpreted strictly so as to prevent
misuse on the part of State authorities - it
is necessary that while preparing the
gang-chart, date of filing of charge-sheet
must be clearly mentioned in the gangchart - pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart
should not be signed by the competent
authorities
because
the
same
shall
amount to not exercising independent
mind. (Para - 6,12)

(B) The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
guidelines for preparing a gang-chart
before filing a FIR under Act - Date of
filing
the
charge-sheet
must
be
mentioned in Column-6, except in cases
under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules,

## Text

12 All. Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
89
(2023) 12 ILRA 89
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16258 of 2023

Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section-3(1) - The U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(3)(a) , 8(3) , 16 ,
16(2) , 16(3) , 17 ,17(2) , 18 , 22(3) - The
Constitution of India - Article-21 -
personal liberty - Provision of this Act are
stringent
and
are
required
to
be
interpreted strictly so as to prevent
misuse on the part of State authorities - it
is necessary that while preparing the
gang-chart, date of filing of charge-sheet
must be clearly mentioned in the gangchart - pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart
should not be signed by the competent
authorities
because
the
same
shall
amount to not exercising independent
mind. (Para - 6,12)

(B) The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
guidelines for preparing a gang-chart
before filing a FIR under Act - Date of
filing
the
charge-sheet
must
be
mentioned in Column-6, except in cases
under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules,
2021.
Competent
authorities
must
record their satisfaction in clear words,
not
by
signing
the
printed/typed
satisfaction. Court must have material
indicating a joint meeting with the
District Police Chief and due discussion
for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986.
(Para - 22)

Illegality in the impugned FIR - charge-sheet
filing date not mentioned in the base case -
violating Rule 8(3) - competent authorities
failed
to
apply
independent
mind
when
recommending and approving the gang-chart -
forwarded and approved on printed proforma -
violating Rules 16 and 17 .(Para -3, 6, 18, 20)

HELD:- Gang-chart did not include date of filing
the charge-sheet, despite being required by
Rule 8(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. All
competent authorities simply signed just below
the
printed
proforma
regarding
their
satisfaction. Violation of Rules 16 and 17 is
evident. Impugned FIR under Section-3(1) of
the Gangster Act, 1986, and its gang-chart
quashed. (Para -18, 23)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gulam Mustafa Vs St. of Karn. , 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 603

2. Icchu Devi Choraria Vs U.O.I. & ors. , (1980)
4 SCC 531

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA
for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks
quashing of the FIR dated 03.10.2023
giving rise to Case Crime No.366 of 2023,
under Section-3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to as the 'Gangster Act, 1986'), Police
Station-Rajghat, District-Gorakhpur.

3. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the impugned FIR
is itself illegal because while preparing the
gang-chart, the date of filing the chargesheet in the base case was not mentioned
which is in violation of Rule 8(3) of the
U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'Gangster Rules, 2021')
and second submission of learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
is
that
while
recommending and approving the gangchart, competent authorities have failed to
apply independent mind because from
perusal of gang-chart, it is clear that it was
forwarded
and
approved
on
printed
proforma which is against the Rules 16 and
17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

4. Per contra, learned AGA has
submitted that there is no illegality in the
impugned FIR and in the gang-chart
because the gang-chart was prepared as per
the Gangster Rules, 2021.

5. After hearing the parties and on
perusal of record, this court finds that in the
gang-chart, date of filing of charge-sheet in
base case has not been mentioned in
Column 6 of the gang-chart and also while
forwarding and approving the gang-chart,
Nodal Officer, Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gorakhpur as well as District
Magistrate, Gorakhpur has signed just
below the printed proforma regarding their
satisfaction as required in Rule 16 of the
Gangster Rules, 2021.

6. Before dealing the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner, it would
be appropriate to mention that the purpose
of making special provisions of Gangster
Act, 1986 is the prevention and dealing
with gangsters and their anti social
activities, therefore, the provision of this
Act are stringent and are required to be
interpreted strictly so as to prevent
misuse on the part of State authorities.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka;
2023 SCC OnLine SC 603, observed in
paragraph-38 as under:-

"38. This Court would indicate
that the officers, who institute an FIR,
based on any complaint, are duty-bound to
be vigilant before invoking any provision of
a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act,
which imposes serious penal consequences
on the concerned accused. The officer has
to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks
to invoke prima facie apply to the case at
hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no
manner, are to dilute the applicability of
special/stringent statutes, but only to
remind the police not to mechanically
apply the law, dehors reference to the
factual position."

8. If any case is registered against a
person under stringent provision of law, it
affects his personal liberty under Article-21
of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Icchu Devi Choraria
vs. Union of India and others; (1980) 4
SCC 531 observed about personal liberty as
under:-

"Article 21 of the Constitution
provides in clear and explicit terms that no
one shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty
except
in
accordance
with
procedure
established
by
law.
This
constitutional right of life and personal
liberty is placed on such a high pedestal by
this Court that it has always insisted that
12 All. Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
91
whenever there is any deprivation of life or
personal liberty, the authority responsible
for such deprivation must satisfy the court
that it has acted in accordance with the
law."

9. State Government has issued
Gangster Rules, 2021 in exercise of its
power u/s-23 of the Gangster Act, 1986 to
provide the transparent procedure to
prevent the misuse of the Gangster Act,
1986. Detail procedure has been provided
in Rule-5 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 for
initiating
the
proceeding
under
the
Gangster Act, 1986, to check arbitrariness
on the part of police authorities, Rule5(3)(a) prohibits explicitly the District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police from
approving
a
gang-chart
without
due
discussion in a joint meeting with District
Police Chief. Rule-5(3)(a) of the Gangster
Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under:

"5(3)(a). The gang-chart will not
be approved summarily but after due
discussion in a joint meeting of the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/Superintendent of Police."

10. So far as the first contention of the
petitioner is concerned regarding the nonmentioning of the date of the charge-sheet in
the base case, the same will be tested in the
light of Rule 8 of the Gangster Rules, 2021.
Rule 8 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 mandates
upon the concerned police officer to prepare
gang-chart by mentioning the up-to-date
status of the case and also the latest status of
the case against the gang member in the
gang-chart. Rule 8 of the Gangster Rules,
2021 is being quoted below:

"8. Stating unconfirmed or false
information
is
prohibited.-
(1)
The
Incharge of Police Station/Station House
Officer/Inspector shall not mention the
cases as Part Trial or Partial Trial (PT)
without ascertaining the up-to-date status
of the cases in the gang-chart.

(2) No unconfirmed or false
information shall be entered in the gangchart.

(3) The latest status of the cases
against the gang, which are being shown
in
the
gang-chart,
regarding
their
pendency in the Special Court, the
convictions or the stage at which they are
in the Court, must be clearly mentioned.

(4)
The
responsibility
of
recording the correct and true information
shall lie on the concerned Incharge of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector.

(5) On discovering an adverse
situation,
the
Incharge
of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector
shall be held liable for negligence under
departmental and criminal proceedings."

11. Rule 18 of the Gangster Rules, 2021
prescribes that gang-chart should be prepared
in the manner given in Form No.-1 of the
Gangster Rules, 2021. Column-6 of this form
mentions the details and current status of the
base case. Form No.-1 of the Gangster Rules,
2021 is being reproduced below:-

Form No.(1)
Format of Gang-Chart
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
(See Rule 18)

Name of Gang Leader ____ S/D of ____
Address-Vill. ____Mohalla ____Police
Station____ District ____

S
l
N
a
A
g
S
e
N
u
Details
and
W
h
G
an
W
he
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
.
N
o
.

m
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
pl
et
e
a
d
dr
es
s
of
A
c
c
u
se
d
pr
es
e
nt
a
n
d
p
er
m
a
n
e
nt
b
ot
h

e

x

m
b
er
o
f
c
a
s
e
s
re
gi
st
er
e
d

current
status of
criminal
cases

e
t
h
e
r
a
c
c
u
s
e
d
is
i
n
j
a
il
o
r
o
n
B
a
il

gs
A
cti
vit
ie
s
(d
ist
ric
t/i
nt
er
-
di
str
ict
/in
ter
-
st
at
e
le
ve
l)

th
er
ac
cu
se
d
ha
s
m
is
us
ed
th
e
B
ail
an
d
di
d
an
y
cr
i
m
e
su
bs
eq
ue
nt
ly

C
ri
m
e
C
ri
m
e
C
ri
m
e

N
u
m
b
e
rS
e
ct
i
o
n
-
P
o
li
c
e
S
ta
ti
o
n
-
S
t
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
rS
e
ct
i
o
n
-
P
o
li
c
e
S
ta
ti
o
n
-
S
ta
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
rS
e
ct
i
o
n
-
P
o
li
c
e
S
ta
ti
o
n
-
S
ta
g
e

12. It is clear from Rule 8(3) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021 that the latest status
of cases against the gang must be
mentioned
regarding
their
pendency,
conviction or the stage at which they are in
court, except the cases which fall under
Rule 22(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021
which provides that in certain category of
cases mentioned in this Rule, Gangster Act,
1986 can be imposed even during the
pendency of investigation. The above
mentioned legal position is also observed
by a Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 10708
12 All. Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
93
of 2023 and 10793 of 2023 decided on
04.08.2023
(MANU/UP/3698/2023).
Therefore, it is necessary that while
preparing the gang-chart, date of filing
of
charge-sheet
must
be
clearly
mentioned in the gang-chart which is
missing in the present case.

13. So far as the second contention of
the petitioner is concerned regarding nonapplication of mind by the competent
authorities while forwarding and approving
the gang-chart, the same is liable to be
considered in the light of the mandate of
Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangster Rules,
2021. Rule 16(1) of the Gangster Rules,
2021 mentions that while forwarding the
gang-chart
by
the
Additional
Superintendent of Police (Nodal Officer),
he must record his satisfaction in clear
words after perusal of gang-chart as well as
attached forms, in the words mentioned in
Rule 16(1) itself before forwarding the
same to District Police Chief. Rule 16(1) of
the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as
under:

"16.(1) Forwarding of the gangchart by the Additional Superintendent of
Police -The Additional Superintendent of
Police will not only take a quick forwarding
action in the case but he will duly peruse the
gang-chart and all the attached forms; and
when it is satisfied that there is a just and
satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only
then will he forward the letter along with the
recommendation given below on the gangchart to the Superintendent of Police/Senior
Superintendent
of Police.
"Thoroughly
studied
the
gang-chart
and
attached
evidence. The basis of action under the
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 exists.
Accordingly
forwarded
with
recommendation."

14. Similarly, Rule 16(2) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021 further mandates the
District Police Chief to record his
satisfaction that all the formalities of the
Gangster Act, 1986 have been fulfilled as
well as all the particulars mentioned in
gang-chart are correct and there is a
satisfactory basis for taking action, only
then he will forward the gang-chart. Rule
16(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being
quoted as below:

16.(2) Forwarding of the gangchart by the district police in-charge-
When the gang-chart along with all the
forms
is
received
by
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of
Police with the clear recommendation of
the Additional Superintendent of Police, he
will also thoroughly analyze all the facts
and when it is confirmed that all the
formalities of the Act have been fulfilled
and there is a legal basis for taking action
in the case, then he should forward the
gang-chart
to
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District Magistrate stating that: "I
have duly perused the gang-chart and
attached forms and I am fully satisfied
that all the particulars mentioned in the
case are correct and there is a satisfactory
basis for taking action under the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act
1986.
Accordingly, approved."

15. Similarly, Rule 16(3) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that
the District Magistrate or Commissioner of
Police, after receiving the gang-chart from
the District Police Chief, will again peruse
the record and he will record his
satisfaction that satisfactory ground exists
for taking action under the Gangster Act,
1986 before approving the same. Rule
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being
quoted as under:

"16(3).
Resolution
of
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate.- When the gang-chart is sent to
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate along with all the Forms, all the
facts will also be thoroughly perused by the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate
and when he is satisfied that the basis of
action exists in the case, then he will
approve the gang-chart stating therein
that: "I duly peruse the gang-chart and
attached forms in the light of the evidence
attached with the gang-chart. Satisfactory
grounds exist for taking action under the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The
gang-chart is approved accordingly."

It is noteworthy that the words
written above are only illustrative. There is
no compulsion to write the same verbatim
but it is necessary that the meaning of
approval should be the same as the
recommendations written above, and it
should also be clear from the note of
approval marked."

16. Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021
further provides that competent authorities,
before forwarding the gang-chart must apply
an independent mind to the information
mentioned in the gang-chart as well as
evidence annexed therewith. Rule 17(2) of
the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides
that pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart
should not be signed by the competent
authorities because the same shall amount
to not exercising independent mind. Rule
17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being
quoted as under:

"17. Use of independent mind.-
(1) The competent authority shall be bound
to exercise its own independent mind while
forwarding the gang-chart.

(2) A pre-printed rubber seal
gang-chart should not be signed by the
competent authority; otherwise the same
shall tantamount to the fact that the
competent authority has not exercised its
free mind."

17. The purpose of prohibiting the
signing of pre-printed rubber seal under
Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is
to bind the competent authorities to apply
independent mind by mentioning their
satisfaction in clear words. Therefore,
signing the pre-typed satisfaction will also
be prohibited under Rule 17(2) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021.

18. In the present case, all the
competent authorities simply signed just
below the printed proforma regarding their
satisfaction. Therefore, it clearly violates
Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

19. This court is also of the view that
while forwarding and approving the gangchart, it is the duty of the competent
authorities to see whether gang-chart has
been prepared as per the Gangster Rules,
2021 and all the formalities as required by
the Gangster Rules, 2021 have been
fulfilled. If from the record, it appears that
competent
authorities
forwarded
or
approved the gang-chart without looking
into the facts that the gang-chart was itself
not prepared as per the Gangster Rules,
2021, then this fact will itself amount to
non-application of independent mind on the
part of competent authority.

20. In the present case, the date of
filing the charge-sheet in the base case was
not mentioned in the gang-chart though
same is required as per Rule 8(3) of the
12 All. Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
95
Gangster Rules, 2021, even then Nodal
Officer and Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gorakhpur forwarded the gangchart and District Magistrate, Gorakhpur
also approved the gang-chart. This fact
clearly establishes that while forwarding as
well
as
approving
the
gang-chart,
competent authorities have not applied
independent mind. Therefore, there is a
clear violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the
Gangster Rules, 2021.

21. Above facts also show that
District
Magistrate
Gorakhpur
while
approving the gang-chart did not hold any
discussion in a joint meeting with SSP
Gorakhpur as required by Rule 5(3)(a) of
the Gangster Rules, 2021, though the same
is mandatory before approving the gangchart. Therefore there is a clear violation of
Rule 5(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

22. In view of the above, this court
lays
down
following
directions
for
preparation of gang-chart before lodging
FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986 :

(i) Date of filing of chargesheet
under base case must be mentioned in
Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases
under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules,
2021.

(ii)
While
forwarding
or
approving
the
gang-chart,
competent
authorities must record their required
satisfaction by writing in clear words, not
by signing the printed/typed satisfaction.

(iii) There must be material
available for the perusal of the court which
shows that the District Magistrate before
approving the gang-chart had conducted a
joint meeting with the District Police Chief
and held a due discussion for invocation of
the Gangster Act, 1986.

23.

In
view
of
the
above
observation,
impugned
FIR
dated
03.10.2023 in Case Crime No.366 of
2023, under Section-3(1) of the Gangster
Act,
1986,
Police
Station-Rajghat,
District-Gorakhpur, along with its gangchart is hereby quashed.

24. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
However,
authorities
are
permitted to lodge fresh FIR on the basis of
fresh gang-chart prepared, in accordance
with law, as mentioned above.

25. At last, this court feels it
appropriate to express its displeasure about
the manner of preparing the gang-charts
in Gangster Act, 1986. This court finds
in number of cases that the police
authorities as well as District Magistrate
forwarded/approved
the
gang-chart
without application of mind and contrary
to Rules, 2021. This negligence on the
part of police officials as well as of
District Magistrate on the one hand fails
to protect the innocent person and on the
other hand, hardcore criminals and
gangsters get benefit of such technical
lacuna in Court.

26. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of
U.P.
is
directed
to
issue
necessary
guidelines
to
all
the
District
Magistrate/Commissioner
of
Police/SSP/SP/Additional SP regarding the
preparation, forwarding and approval of the
gang-chart in accordance with the Gangster
Rules, 2021 in light of observations made
above.

27. Registrar (Compliance) is directed
to send a copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
for compliance.
----------
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 12 ILRA 96
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1468 of 1990

Sankatha & Ors. ...Revisionists (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri P.M.N. Singh, Sri Anil Kumar Verma, Sri
Deena Nath, Sri Anil Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 43 & 360 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 34,
307 & 324 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 114-G - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections
3 & 25 - UP Probation of Offenders
Act,1938 - Section - 4 - Criminal Revision -
Revisionists
assailed
their
conviction
and
sentence - offences u/s 147, 148, 307 of IPC
and u/s 25 of the Arms Act - dispute traced
back to a confrontation involving irrigation rights
- FIR - chargesheet - trial - conviction and
sentenced - by Assistant Sessions Judge - on
appeal,
Sessions
Judge
re-evaluated
and
modified conviction - reducing charges to
Section 324/149 IPC - Criminal Revision - the
revisionists contended that the judgments were
based on biased evidence, lacked independent
witnesses, and ignored inconsistencies like nonrecovery of weapons and questionable medical
interpretation - Evaluation of Evidences - Court
observed no material error, perversity, or
procedural lapse in findings of lower courts -
court affirmed the finding of unlawful assembly
and commission of assault - firearm injury held
genuine, and prosecution's explanation for
evidentiary
gaps
deemed
adequate
-
considering the absence of prior criminal history
and the age of the case, the Court granted them
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
UP Probation of Offenders Act, - and ordered
their release on probation for two years, subject
to maintaining peace and good conduct, and
required them to submit two sureties of ₹10,000
each along with a personal bond and an
undertaking to the District Probation Officer,
within one month - Any breach of these
conditions would result in the revival of the
original sentence. (Para - 23, 24, 28, 29, 30,
34)

Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Hashim Vs St. of U.P & ors., AIR 2017
SC 660,

2. Sitaram Paswan & anr.Vs St. of Bihar, AIR
2005 SC 3534,

3. St. of Haryana Vs Krishn, AIR 2017 SC 3125,

4. Dharni Dhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759;

5. Dalbir Kaur Vs St. of Pun. (1976) 4 SCC 158,

6. Mukesh Vs St. for NCT of Delhi & ors., AIR
2017 SC 2161 (three Judge Bench),

7. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.,
(2016) 10 SCC 537,

8. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2016) 4
SCC 357.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, assisted
by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel
for the revisionists, Sri Roshan Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State at length and
perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentencing passed by
Assistant Sessions Judge, 5th Varanasi, in