High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has pressed the application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Stamp reporter has reported that the present revision is beyond time by 87 days.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that delay caused in filing the present revision is not intentional or deliberate and only due to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.

4. Perused the application. Cause shown for delay in filing the present revision is deemed to be sufficient. Delay condonation application is allowed. Accordingly, delay in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision. Order on Criminal Revision

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of U.P.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (now Sections 438/442 of BNSS), the revisionist has assailed the order dated 04.11.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Criminal Case No. 821 of 2013 - State Vs. Nishant and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Gonda, whereby discharge application preferred by the revisionist has been rejected.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that a first information report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against revisionist alleging that on 21.12.2011, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM and the accused person has changed (cloned) his ATM and took away the ATM of the complainant and this fact came to his knowledge when he tried to withdraw money. The complainant has stated that accused person has withdrawn amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from his bank account. The said offence has been linked to the revisionist inasmuch as amount of Rs.40,000/- has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant to the account of revisionist and subsequently same has been withdrawn from the account of the revisionist.

5. The revisionist on the other hand himself claims to be the victim of ATM Card fraud. He has submitted that on 15.02.2011, when he had gone to withdraw money though ATM, his ATM Card was swapped by an individual who met him in the ATM and the revisionist did not realised this fact till he visited the ATM on 31.12.2011, when he went to check his bank account, he came to know that there were several withdrawals from his account on 22.12.2011 and on this account has opposed the complaint made by opposite party no. 2, stating that he himself is infact victim of the offence rather then an accused.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the revisionist had moved an application for discharge before the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the submissions raised by the revisionist found that cognizable offence is made out as per the complaint and noticing the fact that there was transfer of money from the account of the complainant to the account of the revisionist and consequently, primafacie the revisionist would be responsible for unauthorised transfer of money as well as its withdrawal, rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a public servant and he is a very simple person and does not know much about operation of the ATM Card and submits that it was infact the revisionist who has been the victim inasmuch as on 15.12.2011, his ATM Card was swapped at the ATM Kiosk itself by an unidentified person. He submits that when he came to know that his ATM Card was swapped, on 31.12.2022, he informed the Bank after five days.

8. The question to be considered at this stage is as to whether revisionist is liable to discharge at this stage in the light of submissions made by him as recorded herein above.

9. Considering the complaint made by opposite party no.2, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, it is noticed that allegations pertain to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that money was infact transferred through bank transfer from the account of complainant to the account of revisionist. There is no material to indicate that in these transfers any ATM Card was involved.

10. Prima-facie in the aforesaid circumstances, it is the revisionist who has to explain and prove his innocence as to how money from the account of complaint has been transferred to his account.

11. Apart from the above, money which has come into the bank account of the revisionist has also been withdrawn. Defense of revisionist that he himself is victim and similarly one individual has taken away his ATM on 15.12.2011, these are the facts which not only have to be demonstrated but also have to be proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Merely by stating that revisionist is the victim, would not lead to discharge at this stage. It is only when evidence is lead by both the parties, then the revisionist will have adequate opportunity to prove all the aforesaid facts to the satisfaction of the trial Court and in case it is so proved, may ultimately lead to his acquittal.

12. Accordingly, by merely stating that ATM Card of the revisionist was also taken away by one unidentified individual is not sufficient to allow the application for discharge. This Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order whereby the trial Court has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

13. In the light of above, present revision being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A. Verma ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has pressed the application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Stamp reporter has reported that the present revision is beyond time by 87 days.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that delay caused in filing the present revision is not intentional or deliberate and only due to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.

4. Perused the application. Cause shown for delay in filing the present revision is deemed to be sufficient. Delay condonation application is allowed. Accordingly, delay in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision. Order on Criminal Revision

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of U.P.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (now Sections 438/442 of BNSS), the revisionist has assailed the order dated 04.11.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Criminal Case No. 821 of 2013 - State Vs. Nishant and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Gonda, whereby discharge application preferred by the revisionist has been rejected.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that a first information report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against revisionist alleging that on 21.12.2011, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM and the accused person has changed (cloned) his ATM and took away the ATM of the complainant and this fact came to his knowledge when he tried to withdraw money. The complainant has stated that accused person has withdrawn amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from his bank account. The said offence has been linked to the revisionist inasmuch as amount of Rs.40,000/- has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant to the account of revisionist and subsequently same has been withdrawn from the account of the revisionist.

5. The revisionist on the other hand himself claims to be the victim of ATM Card fraud. He has submitted that on 15.02.2011, when he had gone to withdraw money though ATM, his ATM Card was swapped by an individual who met him in the ATM and the revisionist did not realised this fact till he visited the ATM on 31.12.2011, when he went to check his bank account, he came to know that there were several withdrawals from his account on 22.12.2011 and on this account has opposed the complaint made by opposite party no. 2, stating that he himself is infact victim of the offence rather then an accused.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the revisionist had moved an application for discharge before the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the submissions raised by the revisionist found that cognizable offence is made out as per the complaint and noticing the fact that there was transfer of money from the account of the complainant to the account of the revisionist and consequently, primafacie the revisionist would be responsible for unauthorised transfer of money as well as its withdrawal, rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a public servant and he is a very simple person and does not know much about operation of the ATM Card and submits that it was infact the revisionist who has been the victim inasmuch as on 15.12.2011, his ATM Card was swapped at the ATM Kiosk itself by an unidentified person. He submits that when he came to know that his ATM Card was swapped, on 31.12.2022, he informed the Bank after five days.

8. The question to be considered at this stage is as to whether revisionist is liable to discharge at this stage in the light of submissions made by him as recorded herein above.

9. Considering the complaint made by opposite party no.2, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, it is noticed that allegations pertain to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that money was infact transferred through bank transfer from the account of complainant to the account of revisionist. There is no material to indicate that in these transfers any ATM Card was involved.

10. Prima-facie in the aforesaid circumstances, it is the revisionist who has to explain and prove his innocence as to how money from the account of complaint has been transferred to his account.

11. Apart from the above, money which has come into the bank account of the revisionist has also been withdrawn. Defense of revisionist that he himself is victim and similarly one individual has taken away his ATM on 15.12.2011, these are the facts which not only have to be demonstrated but also have to be proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Merely by stating that revisionist is the victim, would not lead to discharge at this stage. It is only when evidence is lead by both the parties, then the revisionist will have adequate opportunity to prove all the aforesaid facts to the satisfaction of the trial Court and in case it is so proved, may ultimately lead to his acquittal.

12. Accordingly, by merely stating that ATM Card of the revisionist was also taken away by one unidentified individual is not sufficient to allow the application for discharge. This Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order whereby the trial Court has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

13. In the light of above, present revision being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A. Verma ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.)