Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.
Chandradhar Gaur – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Avnish Saxena, J.)
1. The present revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist/accused- Chandradhar Gaur, (Investigating Officer of case crime no. 508 of 2018 registered under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura), on being aggrieved by judgement of conviction and sentence dated 20th September, 2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 429 of 2018 whereby invoking Section 345 Cr.P.C. convicted the revisionist/accused under Section 188 IPC and punished him by sentence of six months imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 1000/- and 10 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
APPEAL OR REVISION :-
2. Though, Section 351 Cr.P.C. provides remedy of appeal for conviction recorded, inter alia, under Section 345 Cr.P.C., but the revision has been preferred, as the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the revisionist/accused for an offence under Section 188 IPC, which is not provided under Section 345 Cr.P.C., therefore, the correctness, legality and regularity
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided excerpt mentions a specific case (State Vs. Chandra Dhar Gaur) and references other cases such as AIR 1971 SC 1935 and Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh (1996) 3 SCC 533, but there is no indication within the text that any of these cases have been overruled or negatively treated. Without explicit language indicating such treatment, these cases cannot be classified as bad law based on the provided information.
[Followed or Cited]
The mention of cases like AIR 1971 SC 1935 and Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh suggests these are being cited as precedents or relevant authorities. There is no indication that they have been criticized or distinguished, so they are likely being followed or relied upon in the current context.
[Uncertain/Unclear Treatment]
The case of Chandradhar Gaur (CASE NO. 429 OF 2018) is described as a revision preferred under specific sections of Cr.P.C., but there is no information about how it has been treated in subsequent rulings. Without additional context, we cannot determine whether it has been overruled, followed, or criticized, so its treatment remains uncertain.
[General Reference]
The list references multiple cases but does not specify their judicial treatment or any subsequent judicial commentary. Therefore, no definitive grouping beyond the above is possible with the provided data.
Chandradhar Gaur (CASE NO. 429 OF 2018): Treatment status is unclear; the excerpt does not specify whether this case has been overruled, criticized, or followed in later decisions.
Other cases cited (AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh): No information on subsequent treatment or judicial commentary, leaving their current legal standing uncertain based solely on the provided excerpt.
**Source :** Chandradhar Gaur Vs. State Of U.P. - Allahabad
The trial court's conviction under Section 188 IPC was invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C., leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Cognizance of perjury under Section 193 IPC cannot be taken without following the procedure outlined in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
Cognizance of specific IPC offences requires a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195, and its absence invalidates related convictions.
Cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant, as per Section 195 Cr.P.C., rendering proceedings without such complaint void.
Cognizance of offences under specific sections of IPC must adhere to procedural requirements outlined in CrPC; failure to follow these renders such actions invalid.
Procedural safeguards under Sections 345 and 346 of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory in contempt of court cases, and failure to comply results in a miscarriage of justice.
(1) Voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. bars court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 1....
Point of law : Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and not in routine manner.
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
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
