Ram Autar vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court perused the impugned order and found no illegality, material irregularity, or manifest error therein. The Court observed that the matter is approximately six years old and inferred that the revisionist had lost interest in pursuing the case further. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed. The Court directed the concerned court to proceed with the case if it is still pending. No specific findings were made on the merits of the discharge application itself, as the dismissal was based on the perceived lack of interest from the revisionist and the age of the matter.

Facts

The revisionist, Ram Autar, filed a criminal revision challenging an order dated October 26, 2016, passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. This order rejected Ram Autar's discharge application in GST No. 37 of 2016, which pertains to an offense under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at Police Station Sikandara, District Agra. The case crime number is 1443 of 2015. The revision has been pending for approximately six years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated October 26, 2016, rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist, suffers from any illegality, material irregularity, or manifest error. Petitioner's contention: The revisionist sought discharge from the proceedings under the Gangster Act. The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the revisionist's counsel, other than the fact that a discharge application was filed and rejected. Revenue's contention: The State, represented by the learned AGA, did not present any specific arguments beyond the presence of counsel. The court's observation suggests that the revisionist may have lost interest in pursuing the matter further due to the efflux of time.