w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Yogendra Prasad Singh v/s State Of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301TN1994PTC028160

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1995PTC068088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. PRASAD AND CO LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1999PLC090325

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

Company & Directors' Information:- H PRASAD & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011797

    Criminal Miscellaneous No.19024 OF 1998

    Decided On, 01 April 2010

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

    For the Appearing Parties: Prasoon Sinha, Indu Bala Pandey, Advocates.



Judgment Text

RAKESH KUMAR, J

(1.) Two petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr.Revision No.226/98. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has rejected the Revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.3.1998, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pupri at Sitamarhi had rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) The short facts of the case is that on 15.12.1992, an F.I.R. vide Pupri P.S. Case No.105 of 1992 was registered for offences under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the written information given by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pupri Police Station. The said F.I.R. was lodged after arresting these petitioners and five others on the charge that petitioners were 2 members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad . Thereafter, it appears that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet and the learned Magistrate also took cognizance for said offences.

(3.) At the charge stage, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for their discharge. In the discharge petition, a specific plea was taken by the petitioner that Vishwa Hindu Parishad was not banned under Section 3 of the Act nor the Central Government ever referred to the tribunal for its confirmation. It was submitted that without declaring an association as banned association under Section 3 of the Act, no one can be prosecuted on an allegation that he was a member of such association.It was further argued that the prosecution under the Act was launched without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government. On these grounds, the discharge petition was filed. However, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 27.3.1998 rejected the discharge petition. While rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has mentioned that since in this case cognizance has already been taken, it would not be appropriate to discharge the accused/petitioners.

(4.) Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition by order dated 27.3.1998, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi, the petitioners filed a Revision petition vide Cr.Revision No.226 of 1998, which too stood rejected by the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. From the order of the Revisional Court, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge examined the case diary and he observed that during investigation, some of the witnesses, i.e. the Block 3 Development Officer and Circle Officer, Pupri had stated that the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi under telegraphic message No.5623C dated 14.12.1992 had declared the association as illegal. It was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution will prove the Gazette and other legal sanction in course of trial and, accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners.

(5.) Sri Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging both the orders, firstly submits that either during the investigation or till the date of hearing on the discharge petition, no document was produced by the prosecution or Investigating Agency to show that any notification under Section 3 of the Act was ever issued declaring the association, i.e. Vishwa Hindu Parishad , as banned organization /association . He further submits that neither notification under Section 3 of the Act was ever produced, nor approval by the tribunal under Section 4 of the Act was brought on record. While referring to Section 17 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has not even produced sanction for prosecution issued by the Central Government. He further submits that before taking cognizance, sanction from the Central Government in view of Section 17 of the Act was must. In absence of sanction being granted by the Central Government under the aforesaid provisions the order of cognizance itself becomes void and all subsequent orders becomes inoperative.

(6.) Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that these material can be looked into during the trial. She further submits that this is not the stage for examining all these 4 matters. She submits that against the rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners had already filed a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge,Sitamarhi and, as such, in the garb of filing of such petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners cannot be allowed to file a second Revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(7.) I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as both the impugned orders. In this case prima facie I am satisfied that the entire proceedings was unauthorized. Merely by way of mentioning the penal provisions in the F.I.R., one cannot be prosecuted unless it is satisfied that such offence was actually committed by a person. On perusal of the F.I.R. Itself, it is clear that the petitioners along with others were arrested on an allegation that they were members of an unlawful association, i.e. the members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad . Before arresting it was necessary for the police to verify as to whether the said association was declared as unlawful under Section 3 of the Act or not. From the materials available on the record,I do not find that there is any material to show that the association in question was declared as banned association under Section 3 of the Act or approved by the tribunal under Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, the provision under Section 17 of the Act is mandatory. Without sanction being granted by the Central Government under Section 17 of the Act, the order of cognizance becomes void. In the present case, even from the order of the revisional court , it is evident that at least till the hearing of revision petition, no sanction was obtained. In paragraph 8 of the revisional order, learned Sessions Judge has noticed the prosecution will prove 5 the gazette and other legal sanction in course of trial. Meaning thereby that neither on the date of passing order of cognizance nor till the date of hearing of the revision petition, there was any prosecution sanction under Section 17 of the Act and, as such, the order of cognizance was bad in law and totally unauthorized.

(8.) In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, I am of the view that allowing the proceeding on the basis of the F.I.R. vide Pupri P.S. Case No.105 of 1992 will amount to abuse of the process of the court and , accordingly, it is necessary to intervene into the matter, even though the petitioners have lost th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

eir right of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (9.) Accordingly, I set aside both the impugned orders,i.e. order dated 12.8.1998 passed in Cr.Revision No.226 of 1998 and order dated 27.3.1998 passed in G.R.No.780 of 1992/Tr.No. 78 of 1998 and also quash the entire proceedings/prosecution in respect of both the petitioners in the case arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No.105 of 1992, corresponding to G.R.No.780 of 1992 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pupri at Sitamarhi. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-06-2020 Rajeev Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-06-2020 Harnam Singh & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-05-2020 Amir Singh & Others Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-05-2020 Sher Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2020 Ombir Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
21-05-2020 Dr. Mulayam Singh Yadav Versus State of MP & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
21-05-2020 Abhay Singh Versus Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited, Represented by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-05-2020 M/s. Prithvi Singh Versus Asst. Commissioner (South), Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Harpal Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-05-2020 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Maha Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 Dipu Singh @ Hulo Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-05-2020 Most. Sangeeta Singh Versus Bindhyachal Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-05-2020 Malvinder Mohan Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2020 Jagmail Singh & Another Versus Karamjit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-05-2020 Jodhan Singh & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-05-2020 Sreeja Prasad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 Ram Prasad Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-05-2020 State (Through) Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Kalyan Singh (Former CM of Up) & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Sarmukh Singh & Others Versus Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Triloki Nath Singh Versus Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 Damber Singh Chettri Versus Lachuman Chettri High Court of Sikkim
30-04-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Dr. Somu Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 For the Petitioner: Suo Moto, Deba Siddiqui, Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-04-2020 Col Ramneesh Pal Singh Versus Sugandhi Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Hira Singh & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Ram Subhag Singh & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
22-04-2020 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Versus State of A.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
17-04-2020 Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Others Versus Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Supreme Court of India
16-04-2020 Krishnapal Singh Versus Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2020 Harnam Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Bijender Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
10-04-2020 Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
06-04-2020 Dr. Shivender Mohan Singh (In J.C.) Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Chetan Singh Versus R.C. Chadda High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Gajender Singh Versus The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Gurcharan Singh & Others Versus Angrez Kaur & Another Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 Ranvijay Singh @ Dharaka Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 Munna Kumar Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Gurmukh Singh Lehal Versus Ajanta Coop. House Building (1st) Society Ltd., Chandigarh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 GBM Developers & Promoters P Ltd., Through its Director, Subhash Bansal, Chandigarh Versus Col. Sukhwant Singh Saini National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Gyanendra Singh & Others Versus State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Finance & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Ashawati Singh & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation off India, Thrpugh Divisional Manager, Allahabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 A. K. Singh, Chief Publicity Inspector, Public Relation Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi Versus General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-03-2020 Jyothi Prasad Versus K.V. Prakasan & Another High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Uaday Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-03-2020 Soban Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Shambhu Singh Chauhan & Another Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-03-2020 Gajendra Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
05-03-2020 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla, Himachala Pradesh Versus Bir Singh Rana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Kiki Doma Bhutia Versus Bijendra Kumar Singh High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Omprakash Singh Narwariya Versus State of M.P. & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-03-2020 Manvendra Pratap Singh Versus U.O.I. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 State Versus Shamsher Singh High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 EMCIPI Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sh. R.K. Singh Versus M/S. Shreyans Motors (P) Ltd., Through Its Director/Managing Director & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Ex NB Risaldar Dilbag Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Boota Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-03-2020 Parvat Singh & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 Rohit Singh Raghuvanshi Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
28-02-2020 Amit Singh @ Amit & Others Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-02-2020 Sadhusharan Singh Versus Nageshwar High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Joginder Singh Versus State of J&K & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
27-02-2020 Shakti Singh Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-02-2020 Iqbal Singh Versus Kamal Dev & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Govind Singh Rajput Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-02-2020 Gurtej Singh Versus Zora Singh (Dead) Through Lr & Others Supreme Court of India
26-02-2020 The Director General, Railway Protection Force Railway Board, New Delhi & Others Versus Rajiv Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-02-2020 The State of Punjab Versus Jasbir Singh Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 The Union of India & Others Versus Balbir Singh Yadav High Court of Meghalaya
24-02-2020 Sukhdeo Singh @ Jannu Singh Versus State of Jharkhand Supreme Court of India
20-02-2020 Shri Partap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Versus Shiv Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
20-02-2020 Satbir Singh Sawhney Versus M/s. JMD Limited Through Managing Director Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box