Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of cyber fraud and investigation linking revisionist (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. no financial benefit; procedural lapses in discharge (Para 6) |
| 3. precedents mandate hearing and reasons before charges (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. bnss 262-263 timelines for discharge and charges (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. no opportunity or legal aid given to accused (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. charge framing vitiated by bnss non-compliance (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. impugned order set aside; remanded for discharge (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant criminal revision filed under Section 438 read with 442 B.N.S.S 2023, the revisionist is assailing the validity of the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow, in criminal case bearing W/S Case No. 121571 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Baburao Sambhaji Maali and others) registered at Police Station Gosaignaj, District Lucknow, under Section 336 (3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) B.N.S an 66 D of I.T Act. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has fr
Framing charges without affording accused opportunity for discharge under BNSS Section 262(1), hearing, or legal aid to custodial accused violates mandatory procedure; order set aside and remanded.
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
The right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses before framing of charges is a valuable right, and the application of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge should be considered in light of this ri....
The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
Framing of charges can occur in the absence of the accused, provided proper legal representation is present, ensuring no violation of the accused's rights.
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
