# State of U.P. Revisionist v. M/S Khetan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 94
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 467 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-revisionist-v-m-s-khetan-chemicals-fertilizers-ltd-jhansi-51396
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision, Section 311 - Power to summon
material witness, or examine person
present , Section 233 - Entering upon
defence , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Murder - "Fair trial" -
includes fair and proper opportunities
allowed by law to pro

## Text

94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others in which after investigation, chargesheet has been filed. The trial court has also
mentioned that both parties are relatives
and live in the same village. There is no
likelihood of opposite party nos. 2 to 4
committing alleged offence against their
relatives near their house.

12.

Considering
the
impugned
judgement and facts and circumstances of
the case in the light of the law propounded
by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding
registration of first information report u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Court is of the view
that while passing the impugned order, the
trial court has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or impropriety. There is no
merit in the criminal revision and the same
is liable to be dismissed.

13.

The
criminal
revision
is
dismissed, accordingly.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 94
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 467 of 2023

State of U.P. ...Revisionist
Versus
M/S Khetan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd.
Jhansi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
G.A., Ram Asarey Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397(1) /401 -
Revision - Section 397(2) - powers of
revision conferred by sub- section (1)
shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding , U.P.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
6-A - Confiscation of essential commodity
- Additional District Magistrate declined to
release the seized goods of the respondent -
which order has been reversed in appeal. (Para
- 9)

HELD:-Order of seizure or release of goods
does not affect the case's merits and is an
interlocutory order. Revisions filed against an
order of seizure under Section 6-A of the
Essential Commodities Act or an appellate order
reversing the order would not be maintainable
under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Para - 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava,
the
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of
U.P. and Sri Ram Asarey Verma, the learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the
District Agriculture Officer, Lakhimpur
Kheri is also present in compliance of the
order dated 22.12.2023, passed by this court.

3. The instant revision has been filed
by the State under Section 397 (1), 401 of
Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of the order
dated
03.04.2023,
passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Court
No.4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2023.

4. The aforesaid appeal was filed
against an order dated 06.03.2023, passed
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. M/S Khetan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd., Jhansi
95
by learned Additional District Magistrate,
Finance and Revenue, Lakhimpur Kheri in
Case No.132 of 2023, under Section 6-A
of U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The aforesaid order states that a team of
officials
had
carried
out
surprise
inspection of M/s Govind Industries,
Rajapur, Development Block Rajapur,
Lakhimpur Kheri. During inspection fake
fertilizers, packing material and illegal
storage of fertilizers were found. Some
raw material meant to be used in
manufacturing of fertilizer was also found
during inspection.

5. Amongsts numerous articles
seized by the Inspection Team a truck
loaded with fertilizer belonging to the
respondent was also included. By means
of
an
order
dated
06.03.2023,
the
Additional District Magistrate has ordered
that the sealed fertilizer/raw material used
for manufacturing of fertilizer was subject
to natural decay and accordingly it was
ordered to be confiscated. The request for
release of the other seized articles,
including the truck of the opposite party
and the goods loaded on it, was turned
down.

6. The respondent filed an appeal
no.22 of 2023 against the order of seizure
of goods loaded on the respondent's truck
and he filed an Appeal No.21 of 2023
against seizure of truck. Both the appeals
have been allowed by means of separate
orders
dated
03.04.2023,
passed
by
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court
No.4/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri and the respondent's truck and
goods have been ordered to be released in
its favour.

7. It has been held in the appellate
order that the appellant's truck loaded
with some goods was parked in the
premises of Govind Industries, Rajapur.
The appellant had produced GST invoice,
bills insurance, e-way bill etc which
indicated that the goods had been
transported from UPSIDC Industrial Area
Malwa, District Fatehpur to Maigalganj,
Lakhimpur Kheri. A slight deviation in
the destination would not establish that
the goods were being taken elsewhere.
The fertilizer loaded in the truck was
subject to decay. While ordering release
of goods, the appellate court has laid
down certain conditions.

8. The State has filed a revision
under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the
aforesaid order.

9. Sub Section (2) of Section 397
Cr.P.C. provides that the powers of
revision conferred by sub- section (1)
shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding. By
means of the order dated 06.03.2023, the
Additional District Magistrate had merely
declined to release the seized goods of
the respondent, which order has been
reversed in appeal. The order of seizure
of goods or their release does not affect
the merits of the case either way and it is
purely an interlocutory order. Therefore,
in view of the provisions contained in
Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. the revision filed
against an order of seizure of goods under
Section 6-A of Essential Commodities
Act or an appellate order reversing the
order
of
seizure
would
not
be
maintainable.

10. Accordingly, the revision is not
maintainable and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 1 ILRA 96
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2018

Anupam Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Nadeem Murtaza

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Kailash Chandra, Mayank
Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision, Section 311 - Power to summon
material witness, or examine person
present , Section 233 - Entering upon
defence , Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Murder - "Fair trial" -
includes fair and proper opportunities
allowed by law to prove her innocence -
Adducing evidence in support of the
defence is a valuable right - Denial of that
right means denial of fair trial - It is
essential that rules of procedure designed
to ensure justice should be scrupulously
followed, and the courts should be jealous
in seeing that there is no breach of them" .
(Para - 6, 7)

(B) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 233(3) - If the
accused applies for the issue of any
process for compelling the attendance of
any witness or the production of any
document or thing, the Judge shall issue
such process unless he considers, for
reasons
to
be
recorded,
that
such
application should be refused on the
ground that it is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or for defeating the ends
of justice - application should not be refused
on grounds not covered by three excluding
clauses in section 233(3) Cr.P.C., as the
defense
sought
witnesses
were
never
examined as prosecution witnesses, despite
being witnesses of inquest. (Para - 5,6)
Revisionist accused facing trial under section 302
IPC - applied to summon five public witnesses as
prosecution witnesses - trial court rejected -
accused requested summoning as defense
witnesses - prosecution objected - claiming they
were witnesses of inquest report and switched
sides - order under challenge by defence - case
continues under section 313 Cr.P.C.
(Para - 2)

HELD:-Trial
court's
order
that
summoning
witnesses
will
tantamount
to
review
is
misconceived. Court failed to apply law correctly
and ignored the difference in scope and
implications between section 311 Cr.P.C. and
section 233(3) Cr.P.C., resulting in a legal flaw and
unsustainable order. Order Set-Aside. Revisionist
to submit names of 2 defense witnesses within a
week of certified copy. Trial court to issue
summons for their production. (Para - 8,11)

Revision disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of M.P. Vs Badri Yadav & anr., (2006) 9
SCC 549

2. Ram Charitra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ,
Application U/S 482 No. 28214 of 2019

3. Kalyani Baskar Vs M.S. Sampoornam, (2007)
2 SCC 258

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms.
Charu Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed by the
revisionist challenging the order dated
03.08.2018 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II,