# Smt. Prem Rastogi and another v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-prem-rastogi-and-another-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-39538
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
name of opposite party no.2 was recorded in
her place and she continued to be in
possession. It is contended that the suit was
decreed ex-parte by IV Additional Munsif,
Rampur and not information was given to
opposite party no.2. That the petitioners were
not recorded as tenure-holders of the land in
dispute and therefore, the civil court had no
jurisdiction to issue injunction in respect of
agricultural land. That the decree relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioners is,
therefore, without jurisdiction.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
has considered the matter in great detail and
has held that after the death of Smt.
Allahrakhi in the year 1976, the name of the
petitioner was recorded over the land in
dispute and she was cultivating the land. That
the petitioners filed a suit under Sections 229B and 209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was
dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed,
but in revision the matter has been remanded
back and is still pending. Opposite party no.2
is the recorded tenure holder and no order has
been passed in the suit in favour of the
petitioners. The suit under Sections 229-B and
209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was pending and in
the mean time an expert order was obtained
from the civil court on 15.3.89. That order
was
without
jurisdiction.
The
learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rightly ignored
that decision. A decision without jurisdiction
can be ignored in proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

6. In the circumstances, it cannot be
doubted that opposite party no.2 is in
possession of the land in suit and therefore,
she was rightly declared in the possession.

7. I do find any ground to interfere in any
of the orders. The petition is dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
----------
25,*,1$/ -85,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, «-
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, «-

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

9LUHQGUD 6LQJK
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD
«2SS SDUWLHV

Case crime Nil/99 U/s 9/56 Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act P.S. Parvartan
Nideshalaya District Varanasi.

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL $VKZLQL .XPDU $ZDVWKL
6KUL 0DQLVK 7LZDUL

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SS 3DUWLHV
Shri S.K.Singh

&RXQVHO IRU 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD
*RYHUQPHQW $GYRFDWH

)RUHLJQ ([FKDQJH 5HJXODWLRQ $FW 66 DQG
 UHDG ZLWK &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH
 ± $SSOLFDQWDQ DFFXVHG XQGHU 66 DQG
 )(5$ VHHNV D GLUHFWLRQ WR EH LVVXHG IRU
KLV LQWHUURJDWLRQ LQ SUHVHQFH RI KLV ODZ\HU
)ROORZLQJ
3RROSDQGL¶V
FDVH
WKDW
IRU
LQWHUURJDWLRQ
XQGHU
)(5$
UHIXVDO
RI
&RXQVHO¶V SUHVHQFH LV QRW YLRODWLYH RI $FW
 &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
+HOG 3DUD DQG
)RU LQWHUURJDWLRQ GXULQJ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ XQGHU
WKH &XVWRPV $FW DQG )(5 $FW WKH UHIXVDO RI
WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH FRXQVHO LV QRW YLRODWLYH RI
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
7KHUHIRUH WKH GHFLVLRQ RI $SH[ &RXUW LQ WKH
FDVH
RI
3RROSDQGL
LV
ELQGLQJ
DQG
,
DFFRUGLQJO\ ILQG WKDW WKH SHUPLVVLRQ FDQQRW
EH JUDQWHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU IRU LQWHUURJDWLRQ
LQ SUHVHQFH RI WKH FRXQVHO
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 $&&
&U 0$ 1R RI GHFLGHG RQ
2ALL] Smt. Prem Rastogi and another V The State of U.P. & others 55

&U
0:31R
RI

GHFLGHG
RQ

&U 0$ 1R RI GHFLGHG RQ
 &U/-
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No. Nil of 1999 under Section 9/56 F.E.R.A.
He has been summoned for interrogation. The
allegation of the petitioner is that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. The only
request made in that direction may be issued
for interrogation of the petitioner in presence
of his lawyer.

2. I have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Singh,
learned counsel for Union of India. The
request has been opposed by Sri S.K. Singh
on the ground that it cannot be accepted in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Poolpandi and others Versus
Superintendent, Central Excise and others,
1992 (29) A.C.C. page 550," it was held that
for interrogation during investigation under
the Customs Act and F.E.R. Act, the refusal
of the presence of the counsel is not violative
of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

3. As against this, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has filed the copies of the
unreported judgements of this Court. The first
is that Criminal Misc. Application No.2221 of
1991 decided by Hon'ble P.K. Jain on
24.6.99. The other decision referred to is
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.447 of 1990
decided by Hon'ble G.S.N. Tripathi dated
26.3.98. Both these cases were under the
Customs
Act.
Similar
requests
of
the
petitioner were allowed. However, the perusal
of the judgements show that no law was
discussed and only it was considered that
there is no reason as to why the interrogation
may not be permitted before the counsel. The
third case relied on is the decision of Hon'ble
O.P. Garg, J. in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1620 of 1999 decided on 4.6.99. In a
detailed judgement the case of Poolpandi
(Supra) was considered and was distinguished
on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "T.K. Advani,
New Delhi Vs. The State, New Delhi, 1985
Cr.L.J. page 1325." I have carefully gone
through the judgement and found that the
decision of the case of T.K. Advani, New
Delhi Vs. The State, New Delhi is based on
the decision of the case of "Smt. Nandini
Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and another, 1978
A.I.R. page 1025," decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. This case of Smt. Nandini
Satpathy was considered by the Apex Court in
the case of Poolpandi (Supra) and has drawn
an adverse inference. Therefore, the decision
of Apex Court in the case of Poolpandi is
binding and I accordingly find that the
permission cannot be granted to the petitioner
for interrogation in presence of the counsel.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.
-----------

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( %.5$7+, -
7+( +21
%/( %.5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 3UHP 5DVWRJL DQRWKHU «$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
7KH
6WDWH
RI
8WWDU
3UDGHVK
DQG
RWKHUV
«2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV
6UL 5%6DKDL
6UL 3UDNDVK .XPDU

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV
$*$
6UL 6XUHVK &KDQGUD

&U3& 6HF ([HUFLVH RI SRZHU
XQGHU7R
EH
H[HUFLVHG
VSDULQJO\
DQG
FDXWLRXVO\