# Suresh Chimanlal Shah Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1479 of 2019
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chimanlal-shah-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45004
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 397/401 &
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
section 13(1)(d)-application-rejection of
discharge application- The Revisional
Court on the basis of material on record,
has recorded cogent reasons and finding
and arrived to the conclusion that the
present revisionist is not entitled to get
relief and has already taken cognizance
on the charges and the trial is at the
stage of examination of evidence-It has
further been recorded that on perusal of
the oral submission and documentary
evidence, prima facie charge levelled
against the revisionist appears to be true
and suspicious, therefore, the discharge
application was rejected In the opinion
of the Court, the revisional court has
committed no error in law. (Para 35, 36 &
38)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in that murder he was given a suggestion
that he has denied that the deceased Ali
Mohammad and Riyasat were also an
accused and he has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons but had
not submitted any charge-sheet against
Ali Mohammad which also goes to show
that Ali Mohammad was also not a man
of good antecedent and he was a police
witness and used to assist the police in the
encounters of dacoits and he himself was
involved in criminal cases but the police
had protected him and no charge-sheet
was submitted against him in the murder
case of Ram Sanehi. Thus from the
prosecution case, it is apparent that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant, hence the appellant is entitle to
be acquitted.

36. In view of the foregoing
discussion, impugned judgment and order
of
the
trial
court
convicting
and
sentencing the appellant Afsar is hereby
set aside.

37. The appeal stands allowed.

38. The appellant Afsar stated to be
on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bond and sureties stands discharged.

39. It is further directed that the
appellant shall furnish bail bonds with
sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned in terms of the provision of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

40. Let the lower court record along
with the present order be transmitted to
the trial court concerned for necessary
information and compliance forthwith.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A492
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1479 of 2019

Suresh Chimanlal Shah ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sri R. Krishnaan
Morthi, Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 397/401 &
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
section 13(1)(d)-application-rejection of
discharge application- The Revisional
Court on the basis of material on record,
has recorded cogent reasons and finding
and arrived to the conclusion that the
present revisionist is not entitled to get
relief and has already taken cognizance
on the charges and the trial is at the
stage of examination of evidence-It has
further been recorded that on perusal of
the oral submission and documentary
evidence, prima facie charge levelled
against the revisionist appears to be true
and suspicious, therefore, the discharge
application was rejected In the opinion
of the Court, the revisional court has
committed no error in law. (Para 35, 36 &
38)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI);
2013 (1) SCC 205.

2. Alpic Finance Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan; (2001) 3
SCC
513
4 All. Suresh Chimanlal Shah Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
493
3. General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya
Rifles Vs. Central Buerau of Investigation and
others.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned
A.S.G. assisted by Sri Kazi Mirza, learned
Advocate for the respondents.

2. The present criminal revision has
been filed under Section 397/401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the
order dated 5.10.2019, passed by Special
Judge, CBI, Court No.5, Lucknow (CBI
Vs. Suresh Chimanlal Shah and others),
whereby the discharge application No.B355 has been rejected.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a
First Information Report was lodged on
22.5.2010
and
after
completion
of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
on 29.5.2012 along with the statements of
48 witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and a list of 22 documents.

4. The revisionist filed discharge
application, which was rejected, against
which, Revision No.1028/2017 was filed
before this Court.

5. During the pendency of the
revision before this Court, the trial court
framed charges on 4.9.2018 and against
the framing of charges, Revision No.1176
of 2018 was filed before this Court.

6. Both the aforesaid revisions were
disposed of by this Court vide order dated
27.3.2019, directing the trial court to
consider the discharge of the revisionist in
view of the observation made in the order
dated 16.2.2015, passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision
No.463/2012 (Dr. Ketan Desai Vs. CBI,
New Delhi), wherein Dr. Ketan Desai was
discharged under Section 13 (1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. In compliance of the order passed
by this Court, the impugned order dated
5.10.2019 has been passed.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submits that the case of the
revisionist is similar to that of Dr. Ketan
Desai, thus, his submission is that the
revisionist is entitled to get discharged
from
the
aforesaid
case.
He
next
submitted that the lower court has
committed manifest error of law in not
considering the grievances raised before it
and in a very cursory manner, has
proceeded to pass the impugned order.

9. He further submits that the
judgment referred in the impugned order
has wrongly been relied upon by the trial
court. The case of Ketan Desai is similar
and the ratio of the judgment applied for
is distinguishable and is not applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of the
case. He invited attention of this Court to
the provision of Section 13 (1)(d) of the
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act
and
submitted that the work done with
dishonest intention to get undue pecuniary
advantage can be the charge punishable
under
the
aforesaid
provision.
He
submitted that the revisionist did not get
any pecuniary benefit, therefore, no
offence has been made out under Section
13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.

10. In support of his submission, he
placed reliance upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through
CBI); 2013 (1) SCC 205.
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. He next submitted that there is
no ingredient of Section 420 IPC against
the
revisionist.
In
support
of
his
submission, he placed reliance upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. Vs.
Sadasivan; (2001) 3 SCC 513.

12. He further submitted that the
revisionist being Additional Inspector, is
an employee of the Medical Council of
India under section 9 (3) of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and the acts
done in good faith are protected from any
suit/ prosecution or other legal proceeding
under Section 21 of the said Act. He
placed reliance upon a judgment in the
case of General Officer Commanding,
Rashtriya Rifles Vs. Central Buerau of
Investigation and others.

13. On the other hand, Sri S.B.
Pandey, learned A.S.G. by inviting
attention on the report of the expert
appointed to examine the correctness of
act of the revisionist and found the
revisionist to be involved and in this
regard, submitted that cogent reasons
have been recorded. He next submitted
that the case of the revisionist and Dr.
Ketan Desai are on different footings. Dr.
Ketan Desai is the President of the
Medical Council of India and was not in
any manner involved in the inspection of
the medical college concerned, nor has
approved the inspection report submitted
by the revisionist. After constituting a
committee, he recommended to the
Central Government for taking necessary
action, therefore, the benefit of Dr. Ketan
Desai is not available to the present
revisionist.

14. His last submission is that the
revisionist has not made out any case. The
court below has committed no error in
law in rejecting the application for
discharge, thus, his submission is that the
revision being misconceived, is liable to
the dismissed.

15. After having heard the rival
contentions of learned counsel for the
parties, I perused the material on record as
well as the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the revisionist.

16. In regard to the first point under
consideration that the claim of the
revisionist is similar to that of Dr. Ketan
Desai, this Court perused the material on
record and on its perusal, it is evident that
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
provides for the re-constitution of the
Medical Council of India and the
maintenance of medical register for India
and for matters connected therewith.

17. The Medical Council of India
(MCI) is a statutory body for the
maintenance
of
uniform
and
high
standards of medical education in India.
The Council grants recognition of medical
qualifications, gives accreditation to the
medical colleges, grants registration to
medical
practitioners
and
monitors
medical practice in India.

18. Section 10-A of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 provides for
the previous permission of the Central
Government for establishment of new
medical college, new course of study etc.
on the recommendation of the Medical
Council of India.

19. Section 19-A of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 prescribes the
minimum standards of medical education
required for granting recognized medical
4 All. Suresh Chimanlal Shah Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
495
qualifications by medical institutions in
India.

20. Section 33 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 provides the previous
sanction of the Central Government, the
MCI has power to make regulations
generally to carry out the purposes of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The
regulation
is
known
as
"Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical
College for 100 Admissions Annually
Regulations, 1999", which was published
in part-III, Section 4 of the Gazette of
India dated 29.4.1999. To verify the
minimum requirement, the MCI gets
conducted inspections of the medical
colleges by its inspectors and obtains
inspection reports from them on the
availability of staff (teaching faculty and
residents) and other infrastructural facility
in the college as per the minimum
requirement prescribed by the Act.

21. In view of the provision referred
hereinabove, the MCI inspection team
comprises of three inspectors, one of
which
is the permanent/ additional
inspector of MCI and the remaining two
are visiting inspectors who are normally
professors of different medical colleges in
India. As per Section 17 of the IMC Act,
1956, the executive committee appoints
medical inspectors to inspect any medical
institution
for
the
purpose
of
recommending
to
the
Central
Government.

22. In the present case, for extension
of the renewal of term for the admission
of 5th batch of 100 MBBS students for
the academic year 2009-10, a team of
MCI comprising of Dr. Suresh Chimanlal
Shah,
Additional
Inspector
(present
revisionist) and two visiting Inspectors
namely Dr. S. Chugh and Pt. B.D.
Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak and Dr. S.
Nagesh,
Professor
of
Community
Medicine,
Lady
Hardinge
Medical
College, New Delhi, conducted the
inspection of Sri Ram Murti Smarak
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly on
20th and 21st February, 2009 and report
was submitted to the Secretary, MCI,
New Delhi on 9.3.2009 pointing out
deficiencies in the Medical College
regarding the infrastructural facility and
strength of teaching faculty indicating
shortage of 11.57%. The report was
placed before the executive committee of
MCI in its meeting held on 13.3.2009,
wherein it was resolved by recommending
to the Central Government not to renew
the permission for the admission of 5th
batch of students in the academic session
2009-10. The decision taken by the
executive committee was communicated
to the Central Government vide letter
dated 13.3.2009 with a copy endorsed to
the college to submit compliance in
respect of the deficiencies pointed out by
the MCI Inspectors within two weeks.

23. In pursuance to the information
furnished to the college to submit
compliance report, the compliance report
was sent by Dr. Ved Prakash Shrotiya,
Dean, Sri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of
Medical
Sciences,
Bareilly
to
the
Secretary, MCI, New Delhi vide letter
dated 4.4.2009 and the same was marked
to Dr. Ketan Desai, the then President,
MCI, who appointed three Inspectors
namely, Dr. Suresh Chimanlal Shah (the
present revisionist), Dri Sanjay Bijwe,
OSD, Medical Education and Drugs
Department, Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai and Dr. R.R. Satoskar, Professor
of Surgery, Seth G.S. Medical College
and KEM Hospital, Mumbai for making
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliance verification inspection of the
college.

24. The compliance verification
inspection of Sri Ram Murti Smarak
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly
carried out by a team of MCI comprising
of Dr. Suresh Chimanlal Shah, Additional
Inspector, MCI (the present revisionist),
Dr.
Sanjay
Bijwe,
OSD,
Medical
Education
&
Drugs
Department,
Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and
Dri R.R. Satoskar, Professor of Surgery,
Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM
Hospital, Mumbai on 4.5.2009 and a
report in this regard was submitted to the
Secretary, MCI, New Delhi and pointed
out deficiency in the medical colleges
regarding infrastructural facility and the
strength of teaching faculty (shortage of
15.7%) and residents (shortage of 48.23%
residents).

25. The report was again put up
before the executive committee of MCI in
the meeting held on 9.5.2009 and
recommendation was made to the Central
Government not to renew the admission
to 5th batch of students for the session
2009-10 to the concerned medical college.
The executive committee communicated
to the Central Government vide letter
dated 9.5.2009 with the copy of the said
recommendation to the college authorities
to
submit
a
detailed
point-wise
compliance in respect of the deficiencies
pointed out.

26. A compliance report in respect
of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI
Inspectors was received by the MCI from
Dean of the college vide letter dated
19.5.2009, which was marked to Dr.
Ketan Desai, the then President, who
appointed three Inspectors namely, Dr.
Suresh
Chimanlal
Shah,
Additional
Inspector, MCI, New Delhi (the present
revisionist), Dr. Anil Pande, Professor of
Medicine, Patna Medical College, Patna
and Dr. A.P. Dongre, Professor of
Forensic Medicine & Dean, Indira Gandhi
Medical College, Nagpur for making
compliance inspection of the college,
fixing the date of inspection as 26.5.2009
and intimation was given to the Dean/
Principal of the concerned medical
college
vide
letter dated 25.5.2009
through Fax.

27. The inspection was carried out
by the team of MCI comprising the
persons
referred
hereinabove
on
26.5.2009 and report was submitted to the
Secretary, MCI, New Delhi and reported
deficiency of 1.65% in the strength of
teaching
staff
against
the
previous
inspection deficiency of 15.7%. They also
reported shortage of 48.23% residents in
the previous inspection.

28. The inspection report submitted,
was put up in the meeting of the MCI held
on 10th and 11th June, 2009 and the
matter was fixed in the executive
committee. The meeting was attended by
Dr. Ketan Desai and other members,
wherein it was resolved to recommend the
Central
Government
to
renew
the
permission for admission of 5th batch of
100 MBBS students in the academic
session 2009-10 to the concerned medical
college. The report of the MCI was
affirmed and approved.

29. The decision taken by the
executive committee was communicated
to the Central Government i.e. Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
New Delhi on 13.6.2009 and on the basis
of recommendation of MCI, the Central
4 All. Suresh Chimanlal Shah Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
497
Government approved the renewal of
permission for admission of the batch of
MBBS students for academic session
2009-10 to Sri Ram Murti Smarak
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly,
which was conveyed to the Dean of the
said college by Sri K.V.S. Rao, Deputy
Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, New Delhi vide letter dated
3.7.2009.

30. Thereafter, it came in the
knowledge that on the basis of false report
dated 26.5.2009, recommendation was
made to the Central Government to renew
the permission of said college for 5th
batch and the matter was handed over to
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
to make investigation in the matter and
thereafter, the case was registered and
investigation was handed over to Sri Rajiv
Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Lucknow.
Prior to it, the expert of the field enquired
into the matter and submitted its report in
regard to the deficiency existing in the
said medical college and taking into
consideration the involvement of the
revisionist along with others, the matter
was handed over to CBI New Delhi to
make investigation in the matter and after
investigation, Criminal Case No.7/2012
under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC read
with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act was registered at CBI,
Lucknow, wherein the revisionist has
been summoned under the aforesaid
Sections.

31. Dr. Ketan Desai moved an
application for discharge, which was
allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench and on
the said basis, learned counsel for the
revisionist is making submission that the
case of the revisionist is similar, therefore,
parity to the order passed be given to the
present revisionist also and he should be
discharged from the criminal case.

32. I have perused the entire
material on record.

33. In regard to the first submission
of learned counsel for the revisionist,
whereby he has claimed parity of Dr.
Ketan Desai is concerned, it is reflected
that Dr. Ketan Desai is President of the
MCI. In no manner, he was member of
the inspection team. On bonafide belief,
that report submitted by the inspecting
team, wherein revisionist was one of the
member, is true, made recommendation
for
consideration
to
the
executive
committee
and
thereafter,
recommendation was made to the Central
Government for the grant to run the
classes for 5th batch of the said college.
To resolve the controversy, Section 13 (1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is
quoted below :-

"13. Criminal misconduct by a
public servant.?

1(d) if he,?

(i) by corrupt or illegal means,
obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a
public servant, obtains for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a
public servant, obtains for any person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest; or"

34. In support of the submission that
no pecuniary benefit has been availed by
the revisionist, learned counsel for the
revisionist has relied upon a judgment in
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of C.K. Jaffer Sharief (Supra),
the relevant portion is quoted below :-

"If in the process, the Rules or
Norms applicable were violated or the
decision taken shows an extravagant
display of redundance it is the conduct
and action of the appellant which may
have been improper or contrary to
departmental norms. But to say that the
same was actuated by a dishonest
intention to obtain an undue pecuniary
advantage will not be correct. That
dishonest intention is the gist of the
offence under section 13(1)(d) is implicit
in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal
means and abuse of position as a public
servant. A similar view has also been
expressed by this Court in M. Narayanan
Nambiar vs. State of Kerala[1] while
considering the provisions of section 5 of
Act of 1947."

35. I have considered the provisions
contained under Section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and the
judgment relied and found that on two
occasions, a team inspected the concerned
medical college and found the deficiency
existing in the institution. The revisionist
was member of the inspection team and
on the next time, for the reasons best
known to him, submitted a report pointing
out deficiency of 1.65% in the strength of
teaching staff. The court on the basis of
material placed. has found the role of the
revisionist to be suspicious and has passed
the impugned order. No mini trial is
contemplated at stage of considering
discharge application. Court to proceed
with assumption that materials brought on
record by prosecution are true. Only
probative value of materials has to be
gone into to see if there is a prima facie
case for proceeding against the accused.
The Court is not expected to go deep into
the matter and hold that materials would
not warrant a conviction. If Court, on the
basis of materials, thinks that accused
prima facie might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge. In the
present case, the Court arrived at the
conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused.

36. In my opinion, the ground taken
by relying upon the judgment in the case
of C.K. Jaffer Sharief (Supra), the facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
is
distinguishable and is not applicable to
the case of the revisionist. Dr. Ketan
Desai was the President and not the
member of the inspecting team. On the
basis of inspection, recommendation was
made to the Central Government by the
MCI to grant permission to run the
classes, thus, the parity claimed with Dr.
Ketan Desai is not available to the present
revisionist.

37. In regard to the submission that
there is no ingredient of Section 420 IPC
against the revisionist, learned counsel for the
revisionist placed reliance upon a judgment in
the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. (Supra), the
relevant portion is quoted below :-

"Here the main offence alleged
by the appellant is that respondents
committed the offence under Section 420
I.P.C. and the case of the appellant is that
respondents have cheated him and
thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver
property. To deceive is to induce a man to
believe that a thing is true which is false
and which the person practicing the
deceit knows or believes to be false. It
must also be shown that there existed a
fraudulent and dishonest intention at the
time of commission of the offence."
4 All. Suresh Chimanlal Shah Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
499

38. I have also perused the entire
material on record and the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
revisionist in the aforesaid case. The
revisional court on the basis of material
on record, has recorded cogent reasons
and finding and arrived to the conclusion
that the present revisionist is not entitled
to get relief and has already taken
cognizance on the charges and the trial is
at the stage of examination of evidence. It
has further been recorded that on perusal
of the oral submission and documentary
evidence, prima facie charge levelled
against the revisionist appears to be true
and suspicious, therefore, the discharge
application was rejected vide impugned
order dated 5.10.2019. In the opinion of
the Court, the revisional court has
committed no error in law. Once there
was a suspicion of involvement of the
revisionist, the revisional court has rightly
rejected the discharge application of the
revisionist. The ratio of the judgment in
the aforesaid case is distinguishable and is
not applicable in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.

39. In regard to the submission that
the revisionist being Additional Inspector,
is an employee of the Medical Council of
India under section 9 (3) of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and the acts
done in good faith are protected from any
suit/ prosecution or other legal proceeding
under Section 21 of the said Act, he
placed reliance upon a judgment in the
case of General Officer Commanding,
Rashtriya Rifles (Supra), the relevant
portion is quoted below :-

"Thus, in view of the above, the
law on the issue of sanction can be
summarised to the effect that the question
of sanction is of paramount importance
for protecting a public servant who has
acted in good faith while performing his
duty. In order that the public servant may
not be unnecessarily harassed on a
complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is
obligatory on the part of the executive
authority to protect him. However, there
must be a discernible connection between
the act complained of and the powers and
duties of the public servant. The act
complained of may fall within the
description of the action purported to
have been done in performing the official
duty. Therefore, if the alleged act or
omission of the public servant can be
shown to have reasonable connection
inter-relationship
or
inseparably
connected with discharge of his duty, he
becomes
entitled
for
protection
of
sanction."

40. In this regard, once on the basis
of material and evidence produced before
the
revisional
court,
prima
facie
satisfaction has been made out that the
conduct of the revisionist is suspicious,
the same cannot be treated to be work
done in good faith. The revisionist while
performing his duty has been found to be
connected with the discharge of his duty
and the work done by him is suspicious in
nature. The ratio of the judgment in the
aforesaid case is distinguishable and is not
applicable in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.

41. On overall consideration and on
perusal of the impugned order, it is
evident that the revisional court has
considered each and every aspect as well
as the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the revisionist and
found that there is sufficient ground to
proceed
with the trial against the
revisionist. In the opinion of the Court, in
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rejecting the discharge application, the
revisional court has committed no error in
law, therefore, this Court found no merit
in the submission advanced by learned
counsel for the revisionist.

42. The revision being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A500

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1640 OF 2019

Anil Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401, Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B &
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section3/4 -
application - rejection - application for
cross-examination of P.W. 1 (deceased
father) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved-order
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory orderrevision against such an order is barred u/s
397(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 10)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65)
ACC 607 SC

2. Asif Hussain Vs. St. of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC
1036.
3. Munna Devi Vs. St. of Rajasthan &
Anr.Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on
6.11.2001

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for revisionist and Sri
Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA.
Perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred by Anil Kumar against the
impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-II, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in
S.T. No. 150 of 2012 arising out of Case
Crime No./F.I.R. No. 531 of 2011 (State
of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), under Sections
498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Bazar
Khala Shukla, District C.S. Nagar/Amethi
whereby application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was rejected.

3. In a nutshell, facts of the case are
that F.I.R. was lodged on 19.9.2011
against four accused persons namely Anil
Kumar (husband), Ram Jas, Dileep
Kumar and mother-in-law (wife of Ram
Jas) alleging that the marriage of deceased
Raj Kumari (daughter of complainant)
was solemnized with Anil Kumar 14
months back, they demanded additional
dowry from the deceased for which the
deceased was being tortured by them and
on
17.9.2011
they
killed
her
by
administering poison. After investigation,
charge sheet was submitted for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC
& Section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Danbahadur (father of deceased) was
examined and cross-examined as P.W.1
by prosecution. Later on, application for
cross-examination of P.W.1 was moved