Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and anr. vs State of U.P. and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 03, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491945

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/491945
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Jan 03, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Rev. No. 9 of 2002
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1974 - Sections 161, 161(3), 173 and 207

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and anr.

Advocate S.S. Tripathi and ;A.P. Tewari, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and anr.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1974 - Sections 161, 161(3), 173 and 207
Reported In: 2002CriLJ1852

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....the charge. the application filed on behalf of the accused that his counsel has gone out to lucknow in connection with a marriage and will not be available on the date on which the fast tract court is to frame charge. it was also contended as a fact that copy of the statement under section 161, cr.p.c. of the complainant was not provided to him as yet.3. in the circumstances, the order framing charge ought not to have been passed by the trial court. the dispensation of justice should not be made post haste. it must give an indication that justice is being done not only for the sake of doing it but also must appear to have been done to the party, who is going to be affected by this kind of dispensation of justice. the trial court is, therefore, directed to provide a copy of the statement of the complainant for which he is entitled under the law under section 207, cr.p.c.4. it is a sessions trial. as a matter of fact even the commitment could not be made unless the papers under section 207 are provided to the accused persons, section 207(iii), cr.p.c. provides as under :(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173.in the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the statement of the informant (complainant), who is a material witness in the case. the approach of the trial court appears to be extremely highhanded in not providing that statement before framing the charge. such an approach is highly deprecable and is not seen with any compassion. the trial court is, therefore, directed to act within the precinct of law and be not unnecessary arbitrarily and authoritative ignoring the provisions law.5. in the circumstances adverted to above, the trial court is directed to provide the applicant a copy of the statement of the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.

2. The trial pending before the Fast Track Court. First Tract does not mean injustice ot the accused. There is a specific direction by this Court by its order dated 3-12-2001 to supply a copy of the statement of the complainant to the accused before framing the charge. The application filed on behalf of the accused that his counsel has gone out to Lucknow in connection with a marriage and will not be available on the date on which the Fast Tract Court is to frame charge. It was also contended as a fact that copy of the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the complainant was not provided to him as yet.

3. In the circumstances, the order framing charge ought not to have been passed by the trial Court. The dispensation of justice should not be made post haste. It must give an indication that justice is being done not only for the sake of doing it but also must appear to have been done to the party, who is going to be affected by this kind of dispensation of justice. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to provide a copy of the statement of the complainant for which he is entitled under the law under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

4. It is a sessions trial. As a matter of fact even the commitment could not be made unless the papers under Section 207 are provided to the accused persons, Section 207(iii), Cr.P.C. provides as under :

(iii) the statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under Sub-section (6) of Section 173.

In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the statement of the informant (complainant), who is a material witness in the case. The approach of the trial Court appears to be extremely highhanded in not providing that statement before framing the charge. Such an approach is highly deprecable and is not seen with any compassion. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to act within the precinct of law and be not unnecessary arbitrarily and authoritative ignoring the provisions law.

5. In the circumstances adverted to above, the trial Court is directed to provide the applicant a copy of the statement of the informant within seven days. He will also be afforded an opportunity of amendment of charge, for which the applicant shall make an application, if any such change or amendment is felt required. Before proceeding with the trial, the trial Court will look into that application and after due application of mind shall pass necessary orders.

6. With these observations, this revision application is finally disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Suresh Kumar Upadhayay and anr. vs State of U.P. and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.K. Agarwal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1974 - Sections 161, 161(3)...

Criminal