Sunday, December 15, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad HC stays proceedings against Adeeb Azam Khan in Rampur MP/MLA special court

Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Section 441 of IPC (U.P. Amendment Act 1961) indicating that there is a mandatory requirement of law to serve a notice in writing.

The Allahabad High Court has stayed criminal proceedings against Adeeb Azam Khan pending in the Special Court MP/MLA, Rampur.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi passed this order while hearing an application u/s 482 CrPC filed by Adeeb Azam Khan. The applicant is invoking the plenary powers of the Court u/s 482 CrPC with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated June 12, 2020 cognizance order dated September 29, 2020 passed by the Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/Additional Session Judge, Rampur as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Trial (State vs Adeeb Azam Khan), arising out of Case under section 447 IPC and Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/ Additional Session Judge, Rampur.

Submission made by counsel for the applicant is that the chargesheet has been submitted by the police under section 447 IPC r/w Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Section 441 of IPC (U.P. Amendment Act 1961) indicating that there is a mandatory requirement of law to serve a notice in writing.

In this regard, the counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on the judgment of the Court in the case of Rahtu Lal @ Rahtu Ram @ Divyanand and others vs. State of UP decided on March 25, 2005. The counsel submitted that in the petition he has specifically mentioned that there was no notice ever served upon the applicant, which makes the entire proceedings vitiated.

Also Read: Allahabad HC asks Uttar Pradesh DGP why appellant’s criminal history is not in public domain

The counsel also raised certain other contentions with regard to Section 468 CrPC on time barred cognizance order and its effect on the prosecution, which require consideration on facts and law both, the court observed.

“Under the circumstances, let a counter affidavit be filed by AGA within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Till further orders, further proceedings of Special Session Trial (State vs Adeeb Azam Khan), arising out of Case Crime u/s 447 IPC and Section 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) / Additional Session Judge, Rampur, shall remain stayed,”

-the Court ordered.

spot_img

News Update