Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 82 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Ram Ajore and others

2012-01-09

AJAI LAMBA

body2012
Ajai Lamba, J.;- The above noted Criminal Revision petitions are being dealt with together in view of the fact that common question of law and facts are involved. For reference to record, Criminal Revision No.496 of 2001(State Of U.P. Vs. Ram Ajore and others) is being taken up. In the aforesaid revision petition, the State of U.P. has challenged the orders passed by Special Judge, Gangsters Act whereby the accused/respondents have been discharged of the charge under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Similar cases had earlier come up for hearing and have been adjudicated and decided by this Court vide order dated 5th of September, 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Vinod Dubey). Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for revisionists-State and Sri Anupam Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in Criminal Revision No. 496 of 2001. Despite cases having been shown in the list, other counsel for the respondents have not put in appearance. Learned counsel appearing for revisionist-State and respondent are ad idem that the case is covered by decision of this Court rendered on 5th of September, 2006 in the case of Vinod Dubey (supra) in which following has been held:- "Out of the above, the following three categories of "gang" appear to be relevant for the purpose of these criminal revisions :-(i) offence punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and category (iv) in respect of preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties; and category (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public. In the FIRs in question there are recitals in respect of the aforesaid three categories. In other words in addition to the list of the past criminal cases mentioned in these FIRs, there are recitals as well of the new allegations or new discovery of facts in respect of aforesaid three categories. Therefore, without entering into the merits, prima facie it cannot be said that the FIRs in question are solely based on the past criminal cases. The second ground on which the impugned order(s) have been assailed is that these orders have been passed without hearing the submissions on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, without entering into the merits, prima facie it cannot be said that the FIRs in question are solely based on the past criminal cases. The second ground on which the impugned order(s) have been assailed is that these orders have been passed without hearing the submissions on behalf of the prosecution. Learned A.G.A. drew attention of the Court towards the provisions contained in Section 227 Cr.P.C. which are extracted herein below :- "227.- if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." Learned A.G.A. took this Court through all the impugned order(s) and from a perusal thereof it transpires that nowhere it is mentioned that submissions on behalf of the prosecution were also heard and considered, which was a condition precedent for passing such an order of discharge. In view of this impropriety this Court is compelled to interfere with the impugned order(s). Finally, therefore, all the aforesaid revisions included in the bunch liable to be and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order(s) are, set aside with an observation that the learned Special Judge Gangsters Act, Faizabad shall pass appropriate speaking orders afresh in accordance with law after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the accused as well as prosecution. The discussions made in the body of this judgment shall not affect merit of the case(s)." Having considered the matter and in view of the agreed position that the case is covered with the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Vinod Dubey) decided on 5th of September, 2006, these cases are decided in the same terms, operative portion whereof is extracted hereinabove. Let a copy of this order be placed on record in all the Criminal Revisions. Lower court record, if received by this Court, be remitted back to the court concerned within two weeks, through Registrar of this Court. The attendance of the respondents may be procured by the Special Judge by issuing process in accordance with law.