SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohd. Ahmad Khan & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 29 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 28

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 2394 of 2021

Applicant :- Mohd. Ahmad Khan Anr.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Alam,Vivek Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Irfan Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Yugal Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

The instant application has been moved by the applicants – Mohd. Ahmad Khan and Anwar Shah @ Anwar to quash the order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Criminal Misc. Case No.13/2019 (Mohd. Ahmad @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Others) and further to direct the courts below to club the Gangster Case No.16/2012 and Special Trial Case No.7/2010 to be tried by one and same court by consolidating the same.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the course of investigation of Case Crime No.7/2010 under Section 406 I.P.C. a false recovery has been shown from the applicant Mohd. Ahmad @ Guddu and the case was converted under Section 392 I.P.C. and the Gangster Act was also invoked, which is pending in the courts below as Gangster Case No.16/2012. It is further submitted that the applicant Mohd. Ahmad @ Guddu was shown to have been arrested by the police and the recovery of some contraband (charas) is shown from him and a separate Case Crime No.80/2010, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act was instituted and the charge-sheet was accordingly filed. The case pertaining to this case is also pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Balrampur as Special Case No.7/2010.

It is further submitted that the applicants have moved an application before the court below to consolidate both the cases as they were connected with each other and try the same, however, the trial court by passing the order dated 23.04.2019 rejected the request of the applicants on the ground that one of the case i.e. the case connected with the N.D.P.S. Act is fixed for arguments while in the case pertaining to the Gangster Act even the prosecution evidence has not started. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court has committed the manifest error and illegality in view of Section 220 Cr.P.C. and it was the incumbent duty of the trial court to consolidate both the cases for the purpose of trial.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no illegality or to say irregularity has been committed by the trial court as one of the case sought to be consolidated was fixed at the argument stage and while in other case the evidence of the prosecution has not yet started.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and having perused the record, it is evident that the instant petition has been preferred with an ulterior object to halt the trial of the case pending before the court below pertaining to the N.D.P.S. Act. The application for consolidation of both these cases have been moved with considerable delay. The prayer of the applicants was been rejected by the trial court in the year 2019 but the instant petition is being preferred in the year 2021. The perusal of the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 would also reveal that on that date the case pertaining to the N.D.P.S. Act was fixed for argument and it could be inferred and since then the arguments have not been made in that case. In the considered opinion of this Court no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial court while rejecting the application of the applicants vide order dated 23.04.2019. Suffice is to say that as one of the case sought to be consolidated was fixed at the argument stage and the another case was only of recovery of ‘charas’ from the possession of the applicant, both these cases were distinct they should not have been consolidated as in another case the prosecution evidence has not yet started.

Keeping in view the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the petition preferred by the applicants, therefore, the same is dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.7.2021

Anupam S/-

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation