eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR PRAYAGRAJ U.P Allahabad High Court RO,ARO, 500 word english contact: 8299289045

created Sep 16th, 10:06 by Rohit kumar


4


Rating

504 words
19 completed
00:00
ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR PRAYAGRAJ U.P Allahabad High Court RO,ARO,500 word english contact: 8299289045
 
AFR
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8420 of 2021
Applicant :- Ramdas Tureha
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap,Akshay Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing for the State-opposite party.
2. The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, District Hathras in Criminal Appeal No.17/2015 (Ramdas vs. State of U.P. and Others), whereby the application dated 18.01.2021 under section 391 of the Code filed by the applicant for summoning certain persons as witnesses, has been rejected.
3. Pleadings of the case indicate that by means of an order dated 28.05.2015, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras, the applicant was convicted and sentenced under sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code2 pursuant to a criminal trial. The trial court while considering the question as to whether the applicant-accused could be held guilty of concealing his original caste while contesting the panchayat elections, has held that though the applicant had misrepresented his caste in the nomination form but he had neither utilized the caste certificate nor had he appended the same alongwith the nomination form. Accordingly, it was held that the charges against the applicant under sections 419 and 420 IPC were fully proved but since the applicant did not utilize the caste certificate the charges under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were not proved and he was acquitted of the said charges.
4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the applicant preferred an appeal being appeal no.17 of 2015 and during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal an application dated 18.01.2021 was moved by the applicant seeking invocation of the provisions under section 391 of the Code for summoning certain persons as witnesses and recording of additional evidence by the appellate court.
5. The Additional District and Sessions Judge in terms of order dated 03.02.2021, has rejected the aforementioned application after taking into consideration the relevant facts and particularly taking note of the fact that the appeal had been filed against the judgment of the trial court dated 28.05.2015, by means of which the applicant-accused had been convicted and sentenced under sections 419 and 420 IPC and despite the lapse of more than five years the appeal was not being argued and the application seeking summoning of witnesses had been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings. The order also records that the applicant had not moved any application for summoning of the aforesaid persons as witnesses during the course of the trial and there was no justification. rohit typing center

saving score / loading statistics ...