# State of U.P. Revisionist v. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakchi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-14
- **Case number:** Government (Criminal) Revision No. 486 of 2002
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-revisionist-v-swami-sachchidanand-har-sakchi-ors-48499
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 227- Discharge of Accused-
Revision against- From the perusal of
record there is no evidence of kidnapping,
loot or rape found against the accused
persons,
consequently
the
accused
persons
were
discharged
from
the
allegation made against them by the trial
court and a reasoned and speaking order
was passed after considering the material
available on record- No illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the trial court, therefore, the order under
challenge needs no interference as there
is no illegality or infirmity in the order
under challenge and the present revision
is liable to be dismissed.

Where no evidence has been found showing the
commission of the alleged offence and the order
has been passed considering the factual and
legal position by due application of mind by the
learned court below, then no interference
warranted by the High Court under its revisory
powers. ( Para 9, 10)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)

## Text

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imprisonment for six months has been
imposed.

3. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the present revision is being
decided on the question of sentence only.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that maximum sentence provided
to the revisionist is three years for offence
under Sections 326 I.P.C. The rest of the
sentence of the revisionist be converted
into fine and the same shall not be treated
as enhancement of the sentence. Learned
counsel for the revisionist further submits
that the revisionist has undergone a
substantial period of punishment and now
the revisionist is on parole.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer
for quashing of the impugned order and has
submitted that the lower appellate court has
rightly passed the impugned judgment and
order after considering the evidence before
it, hence no interference is called for by this
Court and the revision is liable to be
dismissed.

6. I have perused the impugned
judgment and orders as well as record and
in my opinion the same do not suffer from
any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional
error which may call for any interference
by this Court, hence the conviction and
sentence of the revisionists is hereby
upheld. But taking in account of the fact
that revisionist has already undergone
sufficient period in jail as under trial and
after conviction by the lower appellate
court, his rest of the sentence be converted
into a fine.

7. Accordingly, revisionist is directed
to pay and deposit fine of Rs. 50,000/- in
the court of C.J.M. concerned out of which
Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the informantTara Chand P.W. 1 and 10,000/- shall go to
the State. If the revisionist deposits the
aforesaid amount of fine, he shall be
released forthwith, if not already released
and further if not wanted in any other case.

8. In default of the fine as directed
above, the revisionist shall serve out the
sentence as awarded by the courts below.

9. In view of the above, the revision is
partly allowed.

10. Office is directed to send a
certified copy of this order to C.J.M.,
concerned for its compliance.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits
that
there
is
Second
Bail
Application No. 5 of 2021 filed on behalf
of the revisionist-Dod Ram is pending,
which may be dismissed as not pressed.

12. Accordingly, the aforesaid second
bail application is dismissed as not pressed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A246
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Government (Criminal) Revision No. 486 of 2002

State of U.P. ...Revisionist
Versus
Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakchi & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakchi & Ors.
247
Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 227- Discharge of Accused-
Revision against- From the perusal of
record there is no evidence of kidnapping,
loot or rape found against the accused
persons,
consequently
the
accused
persons
were
discharged
from
the
allegation made against them by the trial
court and a reasoned and speaking order
was passed after considering the material
available on record- No illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the trial court, therefore, the order under
challenge needs no interference as there
is no illegality or infirmity in the order
under challenge and the present revision
is liable to be dismissed.

Where no evidence has been found showing the
commission of the alleged offence and the order
has been passed considering the factual and
legal position by due application of mind by the
learned court below, then no interference
warranted by the High Court under its revisory
powers. ( Para 9, 10)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. List revised.

2. As per the office report, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri vide its
report dated 30.01.2020 informed that the
opposite party No. 4-HC/Harish, S/o Lala
Ram, has expired ten years back.

3. Heard Shri Abhishek Shukla, the
learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

4. This revision has been filed on
behalf of State challenging the order dated
26.11.2001 passed by learned Special Judge
(D.A.A.), Etah in S. S. T. No. 64 of 2001,
State Vs. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi
and Others, arising out of Case Crime No.
481 of 2000, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Etah, discharging the opposite
parties from the charge under Sections 395,
397, 342, 376, 412, 506 I.P.C.

5. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that the
informant-Km. Durga Bharti lodged an
F.I.R. on 31.07.2000 at Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Etah which was
registered as Case Crime No. 481 of 2000,
under Sections 395, 397, 342, 376, 412,
506 I.P.C. with the allegation that on
31.07.2000 at about 6:00 p.m. she was
going to Agra with one Jagatveer in
Mahindra Jeep, when their vehicle reached
at Bus stand at Agra Road, then three
vehicles, i.e., Armada Grand Jeep, Gypsy
and Commander Jeep belongs to Shishpul
Yadav, M.L.A. intercepted the vehicle of
informant and from these vehicles Swami
Sachchidanand Har Sakshi having rifle in
his
hand,
Inspector
Harishchandra,
Inspector Ram Prakash, Ganesh Lodhi,
who
were
in
security
of
Swami
Sachchidanand Har Sakshi, having rifles
and A.K.-47 in their hands, came out and
dragged away the informant from her
vehicle and Swami Sachchidanand Har
Sakshi by abusing and assaulting the
informant put his rifle on her chest and
taken her to Armada Grand Jeep and,
thereafter, taken her to his Ashram at
Shikohabad. The accused persons also
snatched her bag containing Rs. 12,000/-,
revolver and papers of vehicle belongings
to the informant. The informant was raped
by Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi,
Padam Singh and Ram Singh several times
in the Ashram of Swami Sachchidanand
Har Sakshi. After investigation the police
has submitted its charge sheet against all
the accused persons, the opposite parties
herein. The accused opposite parties filed
an application No. 51-A with the prayer
that they may be discharged from the
charge framed against them as no case is
made out against them.
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned A.G.A.-I further submits
that on the aforesaid application moved on
behalf of accused opposite parties, the
learned
trial
court
after
hearing
D.G.C.(Criminal) and the learned counsel
for the accused opposite parties, has
discharged the accused opposite parties by
passing the impugned order, which is under
challenge before this Court in the present
revision.

7. Learned A.G.A.-I further submits
that while passing the impugned order the
learned trial court has committed error by
not considering the evidence adduced by
the victim. The learned trial court has also
committed error of law by not considering
the statements of the victim recorded under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

8. After considering the arguments
advanced by Shri Abhishek Shukla, the
learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of State, and
after having gone through the impugned
order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the trial
court and also after perusal of record of the
court below, this Court is of the opinion
that the learned trial court in its judgment
has observed that during investigation there
was no evidence found regarding robbery
of vehicle, bag, revolver, twelve thousand
rupees and papers of vehicle of the
informant. Regarding loot of vehicle on the
date of incident as alleged by the
prosecution, the learned trial court found
that the informant could not produce papers
of the vehicle relating to its ownership and
in inquiry it was found that the same was
belonged to one Vijay Swaroop, who
produced the papers of the vehicle claiming
its ownership and was handed over to him.
The loot of revolver, of which the
informant was claiming its ownership, was
also not found her during investigation.

9. The learned trial court further gave
finding that regarding allegation of assault
and rape made by the informant allegedly
committed by the accused persons on
31.07.2000, the informant was medically
examined on 01.08.2000 and the concerned
doctor has opined that there was no
external or internal injury found on the
person of the informant or on her private
parts. The witnesses of the alleged
kidnapping, who were produced by the
police as eye witnesses, have not named the
accused opposite parties.

10. The learned trial court further
recorded finding that from the perusal of
record there is no evidence of kidnapping,
loot or rape found against the accused
persons, consequently the accused persons
were discharged from the allegation made
against them by the trial court and a
reasoned and speaking order was passed
after considering the material available on
record.

11. In view of above, there appears no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
dated 26.11.2001 passed by the trial court,
therefore, the order under challenge needs
no interference as there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order under challenge and
the present revision is liable to be
dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the present revision
is dismissed.

13. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned District and Sessions Judge
for its onwards transmission to the
concerned
court.
5 All. Wasif Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
249

15. Let the lower court record, if any,
be returned back to the court concerned.

16. The file is consigned to record.
----------
(2022)05ILR A249
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2022

Wasif ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sushil Shukla, Sri Aditya Prakash Singh

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

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015-Sections
18 & 94- Cancelation of interim bail by
Juvenile Justice Board- The enquiry on the
point of juvenility has nothing to do with
the enquiry as contemplated under other
legislations- In no case the child below
sixteen years of age having committed an
heinous offence can be detained as
convict in regular jails. The punishment as
provided under the above provisions is
basically
of
reformative
nature.
The
general principles of care and protection
of children as given in Chapter 2 of J. J.
Act also include a principle of repatriation
and restoration of every child with his
family at the earliest. Section 94 of the
Act,
2015
provides
presumption
and
determination of age of juvenile and such
presumption is not conclusive to prove the
case and is rebuttable on the evidence
lead by the aggrieved parties.

The inquiry as provided under the Act 2015 is
different from that under other laws since the
Act 2015 is a special beneficial enactment
providing a specific mode for conducting an
inquiry for the determination of age of a
juvenile in conflict with law however the
presumption under Section 94 is rebuttable by
either of the parties.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-
Section 94- Even assuming without
admitting that the revisionist had failed
to appear on the date fixed before the
Juvenile Justice Board during enquiry
under Section 94 of the Act, 2015, then
at most it would have rejected the claim
of juvenility. The Board had failed to
perform its obligatory duty provided
under the provisions of the Act, 2015 in
not deciding the claim of juvenility of
revisionist for the last five years. Both
the Board as well as the appellate court
failed to notice that there is no provision
for cancellation of bail once granted to
any delinquent juvenile under the Act,
2015.

Where the Act 2015 does not provide for the
cancelation of bail once granted to a juvenile,
then cancellation of bail by either the Board or
the Appellate court would be illegal and
arbitrary.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Section
94- Once the educational documents filed
by the revisionist mention his date of birth
consistently on all levels, which was
supported by the birth certificate issued
by the concerned Registrar and there
appears no contrary evidence before the
Board, the Board ought to have decide the
issue of juvenility of the revisionist, and
not deciding his claim of juvenility the
Board has caused great prejudice to the
revisionist who was made to face trial
with the other co-accused persons before
the trial court for the last more than five
years.

The determination of age of a juvenile in conflict
with law should be done within a reasonable
time by the Board, otherwise the delay in
deciding the same will result in the trial of the