# Shoib Ahmad Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 615
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 3848 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mayank Kumar Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shoib-ahmad-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-47954
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401, 319 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
304-B - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section
3⁄4
-deceased
died
in
her
matrimonial home within a short span of
time i.e. 3 months-trial court while
passing
the
impugned
order
only
considered the statement of PW-1 and
PW-2

but
completely
ignored
the
evidence collected by the I.O. during the
course of the investigation based on which
the revisionist was not charge-sheetedthe evidence of PW-1 which came up
during his cross-examination with regard
to the revisionist was not considered by
the trial court-Thus, the impugned order
passed by learned trial court is not
sustainable
and
liable
to
be
set
aside.(Para 1 to 22)

B. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary
and
an
extra-ordinary
power. It is to be exercised sparingly and
only
in
those
cases
where
the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not
to
be
exercised
because
the
Magistrate or the Session Judge is of the
opinion that some other person may also
be guilty of committing that offence. Only
where strong and cogent evidence occurs
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should
be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner.(Para 17)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)
List of cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Shoib Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
615
Nigam produced for the first time by
mother of the revisionist before the
appellate court, which showed his date of
birth as 02.09.2002. I heard both the sides
on this point. Admittedly, this birth
certificate was not produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board. Admittedly, there
has not been any statement on oath given
by mother of the revisionist that infact the
birth of her third child was registered in
Nagar Nigam Varanasi though belatedly.
Copy of this paper is on record which
indicates that birth was registered on
17.04.2012 i.e. almost 10 years after his
birth; this certificate was issued on
01.09.2021 i.e. after about 10 months of
passing of the impugned order by the
Juvenile Justice Board. The contention is
that this paper was produced before the
appellate court but the appellate court
wrongly did not took that paper into
consideration. In my view, the production
of this paper was just a next step in the
chain of a concocted theory put up from the
revisionist side. The story given by the
revisionist as to birth and death of second
child has no legs to stand and has been
rightly discarded by the appellate court too
as is very clear from para-22 of the
impugned order. In my view, this birth
certificate is a waste paper on which no
reliance can be placed. As far as the request
for medical examination is concerned, in
view of unambiguous school papers from
Annie Besant school, there was no need to
go for medical examination. Hence, the
court has committed no fault in rejecting
the request for medical examination.

18. I do not find any illegality or
impropriety in the order. The revision is
therefore dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 615
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Crl. Revision No. 3848 of 2022

Shoib Ahmad ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ram Bahadur, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava,
Sri Anil Srivastava, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Amrendra
Kumar Mishra

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401, 319 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498-A,
304-B - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section
3⁄4
-deceased
died
in
her
matrimonial home within a short span of
time i.e. 3 months-trial court while
passing
the
impugned
order
only
considered the statement of PW-1 and
PW-2

but
completely
ignored
the
evidence collected by the I.O. during the
course of the investigation based on which
the revisionist was not charge-sheetedthe evidence of PW-1 which came up
during his cross-examination with regard
to the revisionist was not considered by
the trial court-Thus, the impugned order
passed by learned trial court is not
sustainable
and
liable
to
be
set
aside.(Para 1 to 22)

B. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary
and
an
extra-ordinary
power. It is to be exercised sparingly and
only
in
those
cases
where
the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not
to
be
exercised
because
the
Magistrate or the Session Judge is of the
opinion that some other person may also
be guilty of committing that offence. Only
where strong and cogent evidence occurs
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should
be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner.(Para 17)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)
List of cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors. (2014)
3 SCC 92

2. Sagar Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2022) Live Law
SC 265

3. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj. (2017) 7
SCC 706

4. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. &ors. (2014) 3
SCC 92

5. Brijendra Singh Vs St. of Raj. (2017) 7 SCC
706

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mayank Kumar
Jain, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Prem Narayan
Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Shri Amrendra Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the informant and Shri Om
Prakash
Mishra,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State and
perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has
been
filed
against
the
order
dated
23.08.2022
passed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Fast
Track
Court-I, Bhadohi on the application under
section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant
in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2021 arising
out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under
sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3⁄4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station
Bhadohi, district Bhadohi, whereby the
learned trial court has summoned the
revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to
face the trial with other accused.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in
the first information report are that the
informant Akhlaq Ahmad lodged a report at
the police station concerned with the
averment that he performed the marriage of
his daughter Dilkusha Bano with Ashfaq
Ahmad on 25th March 2021 according to
Muslim rituals. After one week of the
marriage, the in-laws started harassing her
for dowry. His daughter telephonically
informed him about the same based on
which the informant went to his daughter's
house and requested her in-laws a lot, but
they did not agree. The informant also
asked her daughter to tolerate it for a few
days presuming that things would be fine.
On 15.06.2021 at around 6.00 p.m. the
accused Mushtaq Ahmad called on the
mobile phone of Toni Mansoori, the son of
the informant and asked him to come right
away to his home. The informant along
with his family members reached the house
of his daughter's in-law. He saw that her
dead body was lying on the bed and marks
of injury were present on her body. He
suspected that the accused persons have
committed her murder for dowry.

4. After the investigation, a charge
sheet came to be filed against the accused
persons namely Ashfaq Ahmad, Salma,
Mustaq
Ahmad,
Ismat
Firdaus
and
Washeem except for the present revisionist
Shoaib Ahmad, who happens to be the
brother-in-law (dewar) of the deceased
Dilkusha Bano.

5. The Investigating Office during the
investigation based on some affidavits
received of some persons and after
recording the statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
concluded
that
the
present
12 All. Shoib Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
617
revisionist received his education with his
maternal uncle Mukhtar Ahmad and at the
time of occurrence he was working in the
business with his maternal uncle. He was
not residing with his family members
including the deceased, therefore, no
involvement of the revisionist was found in
the commission of the crime.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
argued that the revisionist never made any
demand of dowry from the deceased since
he had nothing to do with the matrimonial
dispute if any. The first information report
has wrongly been lodged against the
revisionist. The facts mentioned in the FIR
are fictitious, untrue and not substantiated
with any material evidence. The financial
position of the revisionist is very sound,
therefore there was no occasion to make
any demand for dowry from the deceased
by him. The marriage of the deceased was
solemnized
without
dowry.
General
allegations have been leveled against all the
accused persons. During the investigation,
no credible evidence was collected by the
Investigating Officer against the revisionist
and no charge sheet was submitted against
him.

7. It is further submitted that the trial
court while passing the impugned order has
not
applied
its
judicial
mind.
The
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was
moved against the revisionist in order to
further blackmail and harass the family
members of the revisionist. The impugned
order is contrary to the law. The revision is
liable to be allowed and the impugned
order may be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
referred to the evidence recorded by the
trial Court during the course of the trial. He
referred to the statement of P.W.-1 Akhlaq
Ah mad, the informant and the father of the
deceased, and PW-2 Fakhre Alam, the
brother of the deceased, and submitted that
these two witnesses have repeated their
version before the trial court, similar to
their version as recorded by the I.O. under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 Akhlaq Ahmad
had admitted in his evidence that at the
time of marriage of his daughter Dilkusha
Bano, the revisionist was living with his
maternal uncle (Mama) Mukhtar Ahmad
and he continued to remain there till the
death of the deceased Dilkusha Bano. He
further submitted that the trial Court failed
to appreciate the evidence available on
record and merely on the basis of the
examination in chief of the witnesses it
passed the impugned order which is bad in
law. The trial Court ignored the evidence
collected by the Investigating Officer
relating to the revisionist based on which
the involvement of the revisionist was not
found and a charge sheet was not filed
against him.

9. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the revisionist has
relied upon the judgment in the case of
Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab and
others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 and in
the case of Sagar vs State of U.P. and
another reported in 2022 Live Law (SC)
265.

10. Per contra, Shri Amrendra Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the informant
and Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
submitted that marriage of deceased
Dilkusha
Bano
was
solemnized
on
20.03.2021 while she died on 15.06.2021
within a short span of time in her
matrimonial home. Some articles were
given by the informant after the marriage
despite that the accused persons continued
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to make demands and harass her daughter.
PW-1-Akhlakh Ahmad, the complainant
and PW-2-Fakre Alam, brother of the
deceased, have deposed before the Court
and stated about the harassment made by
all the accused named in the first
information
report
including
present
revisionist Shoib Ahmad and also about
making a demand of a gold chain and a
four-wheeler. The deceased Dilkusha Bano
was subjected to harassment and cruelty by
all the accused including the revisionist.
The revisionist was present at his house
when the complainant reached the in-law's
house of her daughter where he found his
daughter
dead.
There
was
sufficient
evidence on record to summon the accused
to face the trial with other accused. The
learned trial Court rightly considered the
evidence available on record and has
passed the impugned order. The revision is
liable to be dismissed.

11. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

"319. Power to proceed against other
persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry
into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from
the evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence for
which such person could be tried together
with the accused, the Court may proceed
against such person for the offence which
he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending
the Court, he may be arrested or
summoned, as the circumstances of the case
may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court
although not under arrest or upon a
summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against
any person under sub - section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such
person shall be commenced a fresh, and the
witnesses re- heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause
(a), the case may proceed as if such person
had been an accused person when the
Court took cognizance of the offence upon
which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

12. Informant Akhlaq Ahmad was
examined as PW-1. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that he performed the
marriage of his daughter Dilkusha Bano
with the accused Ashfaq Ahmad on
25.03.2021. He brought his daughter from
her in-laws' house on 27.03.2021 and on
03.04.2021
he
sent
her
back
after
performing her "Vida" ceremony. From that
very day, all the accused including Shoib
Ahmad (present revisionist) started to
harass his daughter and make demands for
a gold chain and a four-wheeler. For this
demand, he went to his daughter's in-laws'
house and requested them but they did not
agree. He asked his daughter to tolerate it
for some days till things get settled down.
On 14.06.2021 he received a call from his
daughter
that
all
these
persons
are
harassing her and they will kill her. On the
same day, he received a call from Toni
Mansoori and reached the house of his
daughter and he found her dead. Injury
marks were present on her body. At that
time all the accused were present including
Shoib Ahmad. He called the police and all
the accused were arrested except for Shoaib
Ahmed who managed to escape from there.
PW-1 Akhlaq Ahmad has proved his
written report as Ex. Ka. 1.

13. PW-2 Fakre Alam, who is the son
of the informant stated in his evidence that
on 03.04.2021 Ashfaq Ahmad, Salma,
12 All. Shoib Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
619
Mustaq Ahmad, Ishmat Firdaus, Washeem
Ahmad and Shoib Ahmad took his sister
after "vida" ceremony. From that day, all
these people started to make a demand for a
gold chain and a four-wheeler. They were
taunting and harassing his sister that they
had given a four-wheeler in the marriage of
their daughter and hence they expected the
same from his deceased sister. His sister
communicated these things telephonically
to him. His father went to her house and
had spoken with them. He also provided
some gifts. His sister made a call from her
husband's mobile phone saying that all
these people would kill her for dowry.
When he reached the house of her sister he
found that her dead body was lying and
there were marks of injuries on her body.
He specifically alleged that her in-laws
including Shoib Ahmad have committed
dowry death.

14.

The
Investigating
Officer
collected the following evidence during the
investigation:-

(i) The affidavit of Iftekhar Ahmad
(the cousin of the revisionist)

(ii) Affidavit of Mukhtar Ahmad (the
maternal uncle of the revisionist)

(iii) Affidavit of Abhay Kumar Yadav

(iv) Statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of Mukhtar Ahmad

(v) statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. of Abhay Kumar Yadav

(vi) statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of Santosh Kumar Singh

(vii) Statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of Bhushan Kumar Bij

15. Iftekhar Ahmad, son of Mukhtar
Ahmad who is the cousin of revisionist
Shoib Ahmad has mentioned in his affidavit
that revisionist Shoib Ahmad received his
education while residing in their house and
on the date of occurrence he was with
them. In his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C., witness Mukhtar Ahmad supported
the version stated in his affidavit and stated
that for the last ten years revisionist was
living with his son Iftekhar Ahmad and on
the date of occurrence as well he was living
with them. Witness Abhay Kumar Yadav
supported his affidavit and stated in his
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he
was working as an Assistant in M/s Art
Palace Dining Division at Rampur District
Jaunpur since last four years and the
revisionist was working with him as incharge in that firm. On the date of
occurrence, Shoib Ahmad was present in
the aforementioned workplace. Santosh
Kumar Singh in his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. narrated to the Investigating
Officer that when the incident occurred on
15.06.2021 in his colony, Shoib Ahmad
was not involved since he used to live with
his maternal uncle in District Bhadohi. On
the date of the occurrence, he did not come
to his house. A similar statement was given
to the Investigating Officer by Bhushan
Kumar Bij.

16. PW-1 Ikhlakh Ahmad admitted
during his cross-examination that at the
time of the marriage of the son Ashfaq, his
brother Shoib Ahmad (the revisionist) was
working with his maternal uncle Mukhtar
Ahmad. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence
corroborates the evidence collected by the
Investigating
Officer
during
the
investigation.

17. The Supreme Court in Hardeep
Singh vs State of Punjab and others
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has observed
as under:

"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power. It is to be exercised sparingly and
only in those cases where the circumstances
of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the
Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some
other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

99. Thus, we hold that though only a
prima facie case is to be established from
the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that
the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead
to conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of
providing if ''it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence' is clear from the
words "for which such person could be
tried together with the accused." The words
used are not ''for which such person could
be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope
for the Court acting under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt
of the accused.

18. In Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
observation made in Hardeep Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92
in the matter of the power of the Court to
summon a non-chargesheeted accused and
has observed that a parallel was drawn with
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
before the Court and their statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the
Investigating
Officer
during
the
investigation to find out whether something
more than prima facie has come out in their
deposition or not and something more than
mere complicit prospective accused is
established in the crime. The Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that:

"13. In order to answer the question,
some of the principles enunciated in
Hardeep
Singh's
case
may
be
recapitulated: power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court
at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the
conclusion of trial, to summon any person
as an accused and face the trial in the
ongoing case, once the trial court finds that
there is some 'evidence' against such a
person on the basis of which evidence it
can be gathered that he appears to be
guilty of offence. The 'evidence' herein
means the material that is brought before
the Court during trial. Insofar as the
material/evidence collected by the I.O. at
the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be
utilised for corroboration and to support
the evidence recorded by the Court to
invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced
in examination-in-chief, without cross-
examination of witnesses, can also be taken
into consideration. However, since it is a
discretionary power given to the Court
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an
extraordinary one,
same
has
to
be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so
warrants. The degree of satisfaction is
more than the degree which is warranted at
the time of framing of the charges against
others in respect of whom chargesheet was
filed. Only where strong and cogent
12 All. Shoib Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
621
evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the Court that such
power should be exercised. It is not to be
exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner.
The prima facie opinion which is to be
formed requires stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity.

14. When we translate the aforesaid
principles with their application to the facts
of this case, we gather an impression that
the trial court acted in a casual and
cavalier manner in passing the summoning
order
against
the
appellants.
The
appellants were named in the FIR.
Investigation was carried out by the police.
On the basis of material collected during
investigation, which has been referred to by
us above, the IO found that these
appellants were in Jaipur city when the
incident took place in Kanaur, at a distance
of 175 kms. The complainant and others
who supported the version in the FIR
regarding
alleged
presence
of
the
appellants at the place of incident had also
made statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
to the same effect. Notwithstanding the
same, the police investigation revealed that
the statements of these persons regarding
the presence of the appellants at the place
of occurrence was doubtful and did not
inspire
confidence,
in
view
of
the
documentary and other evidence collected
during the investigation, which depicted
another story and clinchingly showed that
appellants plea of alibi was correct.
15. This record was before the trial court.
Notwithstanding the same, the trial court
went by the deposition of complainant and
some other persons in their examination-inchief, with no other material to support
their so- called verbal/ocular version.
Thus, the 'evidence' recorded during trial
was nothing more than the statements
which was already there under Section 161
Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation
of the case. No doubt, the trial court would
be competent to exercise its power even on
the basis of such statements recorded
before it in examination-in-chief. However,
in a case like the present where plethora of
evidence was collected by the IO during
investigation which suggested otherwise,
the trial court was at least duty bound to
look into the same while forming prima
facie opinion and to see as to whether
'much
stronger
evidence
than
mere
possibility
of
their
(i.e.
appellants)
complicity has come on record. There is no
satisfaction of this nature. Even if we
presume that the trial court was not
apprised of the same at the time when it
passed the order (as the appellants were
not on the scene at that time), what is more
troubling is that even when this material on
record was specifically brought to the
notice of the High Court in the Revision
Petition filed by the appellants, the High
Court too blissfully ignored the said
material.
Except
reproducing
the
discussion contained in the order of the
trial court and expressing agreement
therewith, nothing more has been done.
Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny."

19. In the given case also the learned
trial Court while passing the order for
summoning the revisionist to face the trial
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has considered
only the evidence produced before it by the
prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2.
Moreover,
the
learned
trial
court
completely ignored the evidence in the
cross-examination
of
PW-1
Ekhlakh
Ahmad
in
which
he
admitted
that
revisionist Shoib Ahmad was working with
his maternal uncle Mukhtar Ahmad at the
time of the marriage of the deceased. The
learned trial Court also ignored the
evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer
during
the
course
of
the
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation based on which the revisionist
was not charge sheeted.

20. In view of the above, it is clear that
the learned trial court while passing the
impugned order only considered the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded during the trial
about the involvement of the revisionist and
summoned him invoking the power for
summoning revisionist under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to face the trial. The trial court has
completely ignored the evidence which was
available on record more than prima facie as
referred earlier. In view of the observation
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijendra
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) in the
present case also the evidence recorded
during the trial was nothing more than the
statements of informant Ikhlakh Ahmad and
his
son
Fakre
Alam,
recorded
by
Investigating Officer under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Sufficient evidence was collected by
the Investigating Officer which does not
suggest the involvement of the revisionist in
the crime. The evidence of PW1 Ekhlaq
Ahmad, which came up during his crossexamination with regard to the revisionist
was not considered by the trial court while
passing the impugned order.

21. Therefore, in view of the above,
the impugned order passed by the learned
trial Court is not sustainable and liable to
be set aside. Resultantly, the revision is
liable to be allowed.

Order

22. The Criminal Revision is hereby
allowed.

23. The impugned order dated
23.08.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.
281 of 2021 (State Vs. Ashfaq Ahmad and
Ors) relating to Case Crime No. 135 of
2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC
and section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, is
hereby set aside.

24. Let the copy of this order be sent
to the court concerned for information and
necessary compliance.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 622
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Crl. Revision No. 5121 of 2010

Shiv Narain Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Surendra Singh, Sri Harsh Narayan Singh, Sri
Prashant Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
397/401
-
Negotiable
Instruments
Act,
1881Section 138-challenge to- convictiondishonour of cheque-notice was given
under the stipulated time but the
complaint was not filed within one month
from the date on which cause of action
arose-condonation of delay application
was moved-objection filed with regard to
condonation of delay to file a complaint
beyond
time
by
the
complainantProvision of section 142(b) of NI Act
cannot be considered to be effective with
retrospective effect-Ld trial court did not
consider it and rejected the objection and
did not give the benefit of the provision
to
the
respondent-Therefore,
the
complaint filed by the revisionist barred
by limitation.(Para 1 to 21)