Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRASAD
MOHAMMAD DAOOD QURESHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. - Respondents
Criminal Revision 731 Of 1992
Decided On : 10/12/1992
CRIMINAL REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - ACQUITTAL - RELEASE FROM JAIL - ILLEGALITY OF DETENTION - INHERENT POWER OF REMAND - PRODUCTION WARRANT - STAY OF TRANSFER ORDER - MODIFICATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, Mohammad Daood, was acquitted in a criminal trial but was not released from jail. He filed a revision petition challenging the legality of his detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petition was maintainable as the revisionist had been acquitted and not convicted, and therefore, an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was not available to him. The court further held that the trial court had committed illegality in not passing an order for the release of the revisionist upon his acquittal, as required under Section 354(1)(d) of the CrPC. The court also held that the detention of the revisionist in jail after his acquittal was illegal as there was no valid remand order or recommittal order for keeping him in jail.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petition was maintainable? 2. Whether the trial court had committed illegality in not passing an order for the release of the revisionist upon his acquittal? 3. Whether the detention of the revisionist in jail after his acquittal was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A revision petition is maintainable against an order of acquittal if the petitioner is challenging the legality of his detention after acquittal. 2. A trial court is required to pass an order for the release of the accused upon his acquittal, as per Section 354(1)(d) of the CrPC. 3. The detention of an accused in jail after his acquittal is illegal in the absence of a valid remand order or recommittal order.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned order to the extent that the revisionist was to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The court also deleted certain sentences from the impugned order which directed the revisionist to remain confined in jail subject to the decision of the High Court in a writ petition.
( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 12-2-92 passed by the learned Special Judge, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 748-A/84 State v. Mohammad Daood under Ss. 394/397, I. P. C. Police Station Hajrat Nagar Garhi, District Moradabad.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are as under :-THE revisionist Mohammad Daood Qureshi was one of the accused in Session Trial No. 748/84 State v. Asad. During trial Mohammad Daood Qureshi absconded. Consequently his case was separated from the original Session Trial No. 748/84 and was numbered as Session Trial No. 748-A/84 state v. Daood. The revisionist Mohammad Daood Qureshi was charged under Ss. 394/397, I. P. C. in Session Trial No. 748-A/84. After framing charges, he absconded. He was, however, arrested in Bombay in connection with N. D. and P. S. Special Case No. 801/89 State (D. C. B. C. I. D.) v. Mohd. Daood. He moved several applications before the Special Judge, Moradabad, who ultimately passed an order under S. 267, Cr. P. C. and the b-Warrant in Form No. 36 was sent to Bombay. Consequently the revisionist Mohd. Daood, who was confined at the relevant time in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik, was ultimately transferred on 1-12-90. He reached Moradabad on 3-12-1990 and was produced before the Special Judge, Moradabad on 3-12-90 itself. The Special Judge, Moradabad passed an order remanding him (revisionist Mohammad Daood) in judicial custody. A copy of that order has been marked as Annexure-C. A-1 to the counter-affidavit.
( 3 ) THE revisionist had been absconding for more than six years. Consequently the Session Trial No. 748-A/84 could be started only when the revisionist was brought to Moradabad on b-Warrant. The Special Judge, Moradabad remanded him from time to time in the judicial custody during trial.
( 4 ) THE revisionist filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10870/91 Mohammad Daood v. State of U. P. in the Honble Court. The prayers made in this writ petition, have been quoted in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit. The same are reproduced as under :- "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to : (I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Supdt. Central District Jail, Moradabad not to transfer the petitioner from Moradabad to Bombay in pursuance of the warrants which he received from the Court of City Sessions Court, Greater Bombay for the production of the petitioner before him some time in the month of January, 1991; (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner the moment he receives the release order in Crime No. 96 of 1983 P. S. Hazrat Nagar Ganhi, Moradabad under S. 392/397, I. P. C. ; (III) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the cases; (IV) Award the costs. "
( 5 ) THE revisionist also filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 24268/91 Mohammad Daood alias Mohammad Salim Qureshi v. Adhichhak Janpad Karagar, Moradabad in the Honble Court. The prayers made in the Habeas Corpus petition have been quoted in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit.
( 6 ) ON 28-10-91 the Honble Court passed an order in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 24268/91 to the effect that the petitioner i. e. the revisionist shall not be transferred from District Jail, Moradabad to any other jail outside Moradabad. A copy of that order has been marked as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed by the revisionist.
( 7 ) THE Special Judge, Moradabad passed the impugned order dated 12-2-92 acquitting the revisionist in Session Trial No. 748-A but not releasing him from the jail. The revisionist felt aggrieved of the impugned order and therefore preferred this revision against the same.
( 8 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
( 9 ) THE first question which a
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
