# Smt. Kamla Devi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1290
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2038 of 2002
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamla-devi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45169
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-section 498Amaintainibility of-application for revision
made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto in case of acquittalwhile preferring appeal against acquittal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C. revisionist preferred
Criminal
revision
which
is
not
maintainable as per statutory provisionhence,dismissed.(Para 3 to 7)

B. Criminal Law-As per Sub-section 5 of
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. "where under this
code an appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High Court
by any person and the High court is
satisfied that such application was made
under the erroneous belief that no appeal
lies thereto and that it is necessary in the
interest of justice so to do, the High Court
may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly."(Para 5)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

## Text

1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nagar, which is a show window of U.P.
and has very high financial interest will
significantly get affected adversely. The
report clearly suggest that there cannot be
a better case under the U.P. Gangsters and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 than this. On perusal of the history
sheet shows that though some cases have
been registered under the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 but they are against the few gang
members only and for particular crime.
Such pattern of structure and function of
organized criminals working hand in glove
together was never taken cognizance of
earlier and therefore this report and
proposed action under the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 by Gautam Buddh Nagar police will
prove to be a landmark case in the
investigation of such organized criminal
activities in the district."

11. The F.I.R. reveals that most of the
members of the gang are already facing
large number of criminal cases and that
they are operating from jail.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as the allegations made in
the F.I.R. make out a cognizable offence
against the petitioner and the matter
requires investigation, it is not a fit case
for quashing the F.I.R. in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.

13. Accordingly, we decline to
exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in
the matter and the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1290

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2038 of 2002

Smt. Kamla Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Dhirendra Singh Rajput

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

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-section 498Amaintainibility of-application for revision
made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto in case of acquittalwhile preferring appeal against acquittal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C. revisionist preferred
Criminal
revision
which
is
not
maintainable as per statutory provisionhence,dismissed.(Para 3 to 7)

B. Criminal Law-As per Sub-section 5 of
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. "where under this
code an appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High Court
by any person and the High court is
satisfied that such application was made
under the erroneous belief that no appeal
lies thereto and that it is necessary in the
interest of justice so to do, the High Court
may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly."(Para 5)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. The present criminal revision has
been preferred against the acquittal order
dated 21.09.2002 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Orai District Jalun in
2 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1291
complaint case no. 1487 of 2002 under
Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code.

2. From the perusal of the order
passed by this Court on 10.12.2002
wherein counsel for the revisionist prays
for and is allowed one week time,
thereafter nothing has been brought on
record.

3. The present proceedings arise out
of the complaint case preferred by Smt.
Kamla Devi against her husband, Jaith,
Jaithani,
Father-in-law,
Mother-in-law,
Sister-in-law and Mamya Sasur. In the
complaint case all these persons have been
acquitted, against the said order of
acquittal, the present criminal revision has
been preferred. In case of acquittal appeal
lies under Section 378 is quoted below:-

"Appeal in case of acquittal -
(1) Save as otherwise provided in subSection (2) and subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3) and (5):-

(a) the District Magistrate may,
in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor
to present an appeal to the Court of
Session from an order or acquittal passed
by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable
and non-bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in
any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High Court from
an original or appellate order of an
acquittal passed by any Court other than a
High Court (not being an order under
Clause (a)} or an order of acquittal passed
by the Court of Session in revision.]

(2) If such an order of acquittal
is passed in any case in which the offence
has been investigated by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment constituted under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 (25 of 1946) or by any other agency
empowered to make investigation into an
offence under any Central Act other than
this Code, [ the Central Government may,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (3),
also direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal-

(a) to the Court of Session, from
an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and
non-bailable offence;

(b) to the High Court from an
original or appellate order of an acquittal
passed by any Court other than a High
Court [ not being an order under clause
(a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.]

(3) No appeal under sub-Section
(1) or sub-Section (2) shall be entertained
except with the leave of the High Court.

(4) If such an order of acquittal
is passed in any case instituted upon
complaint and the High Court, on an
application made to it by the complaint in
this behalf, grants special leave to appeal
from the order of acquittal, the complaint
may present such an appeal to the High
Court."

4. At the same time learned A.G.A.
has also drawn the attention of this Court
to sub-Section 5 of Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
which is quoted below:-

" Where under this Code an
appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High
Court by any person and the High
Court is satisfied that such application
was made under the erroneous belief
that no appeal lies thereto and that it is
necessary in the interest of justice so to
do, the High Court may treat the
application for revision as a petition of
appeal
and
deal
with
the
same
accordingly."
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The perusal of sub section 5 of Section
401 of Cr.P.C. wherein it has been provided
that where under this Court an appeal lies but
an application for revision has been made and
the High Court is satisfied that such application
was made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto and in the interest of justice
so to do, the High Court may treat the
application for revision as a petition of appeal.

6. From the perusal of the record it
comes out that no such application was ever
made by the revisionist despite a long period of
about 17 years have elapsed, saying that the
revision was filed under the erroneous belief
that no appeal lies thereto.

7. As per the statuary provision the
present criminal revision is not maintainable
and hence dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1292

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 152 of 2004

Manju Chauhan ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Guddi Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.R. Rizvi, Manju Gupta, R.M. Dubey,
Sanjay Saxena, Uma Gupta, Vina Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arun Kumar Shukla, Arun Kumar Shukla,
M.K. Dixit, Prashant Kumar Mishra

A. Civil Law-Workmen's Compensation
Act (8 of 1923) - S. 22 - Compensation - it
must be established that the workman
was
under
the
employment
of
the
employer and that he agreed to serve the
employer subject to his control and
supervision - that the workman should be
actually working at the time of injury /
accident - injury must be caused in the
course of & out of the employment
(Para 15)

Appellant called mechanic Om Prakash for
repairing engine (pumpset) - Om Prakash
told that wheel was cracked - In the
meantime deceased (Shyam Narain) of the
village came & started the engine despite
being stopped - deceased suffered serious
injuries
and
subsequently
died
-
Commissioner held that the deceased was
in casual employment of the appellant and
died
during
employment
-
Held
-
respondent-claimants failed to prove that
the
deceased
was
a
mechanic
of
engine/workman and in employment of the
appellant or there was any contract of
employment with him - there was no
relation
of
employer
and
employee
between the appellant and the
 (Para 30)

First Appeal From Order allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Shri Chintaman Rao & Anr Vs The State
of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1958 SC 388

2.
Valli,
Minor
Sengottaiyan,
Minor
Neelambal & Periyathayee Vs Sidhan & Ors

3. Kottayan Vs Zacharia Kurien @ Babu

4. Smt. T.S. Shylaja Vs Oriental Insurance
Company & Another; AIR 2014 SC 893

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Ms. Vina Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellant and Shri M.K.
Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant First Appeal From
Order under Section 30 of The Workmen's