Tuesday, April 16, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad High Court dismisses criminal revision petition of former MP Umakant Yadav

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal revision petition of former MP Umakant Yadav in a case of cheating and forgery.

A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing Yadav’s revision petition.

The criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, MP/MLA, Allahabad in Criminal Case, arising out of Crime under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.

Vide impugned order, the trial court has dismissed the application for discharge filed by the accused-revisionist.

Yadav is a former two-time MP and one-time MLA. He has a long criminal history of 81 cases, which include 15 murder cases. He has been recently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court at Jaunpur. This is the first case where the Court could convict the accused-revisionist for the first time.

The case was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C on a direction of the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.

The allegation against the accused-revisionist is that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, he transferred the land of the complainant and got the mutation effected in his favour in revenue records. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused-revisionist and other co-accused.

Thereafter, accused-revisionist has filed a discharge application, which was rejected by the trial court, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record.

At the time of consideration of the discharge/framing of charge, the Court is required to consider the material and evidence collected during the course of investigation to find out whether prima facie case against the accused is made out or not.

R.P. Yadav, the counsel for the accused-revisionist, submitted that the accused-revisionist was a public servant being a former Member of Parliament and without sanction from the competent authority for prosecution of the accused-revisionist, the order of cognizance could not have been passed.

From the memo of revision, it is evident that the said point was not taken before the trial court. The question of sanction/validity of sanction, can be taken by the accused-revisionist at an appropriate stage of the trial which shall be dealt with by the trial court.

“From a reading of the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, it does not appear to be passed without considering the law or appear to have been passed in violation of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order by exercising its revisional powers,” the Court observed while dismissing the criminal revision.

spot_img

News Update