High Court · 2025

sessions court where trial commenced.

4. In the aforesaid background, one petition was filed before this Court at Allahabad bearing Misc. Case No.4797 of 2007, wherein the Court passed an order for transfer on 15.03.2007 directing the transfer of case bearing No.376 of 2003 to the appropriate court at Lucknow, who was seized with sessions trial No.690 of 2005 as both the trials involved similar questions.

5. It further appears that the transfer order passed by the High Court dated 15.03.2007 could not be brought to the notice of the Trial Judge, as a consequence, the three chargesheeted persons, namely, Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram filed an application seeking discharge which came to be allowed on

05.11.2007.

6. The present petitioner assailed the order dated 05.11.2007 by filing a petition bearing No.24940 of 2008 before this Court at Allahabad clearly stating therein that once the High Court had passed an order directing transfer of the Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 to Lucknow, hence the Trial Judge did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated 05.11.2007 discharging the three accused, namely, Lalal Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram.

7. The record further reflects that the High Court in the aforesaid Case No.24940 of 2008 had issued notices to the respondents no.4, 5 and 6 in the said petition and further directed the Sessions Court to be appraised of the order dated

15.03.2007.

8. The record further indicates that the said petition as mentioned aforesaid was dismissed for want of prosecution on

08.11.2021. The petitioner has moved an application seeking recall of the said order, which is still pending without any orders.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid backdrop of facts has urged that the issue involved in Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 which emanated in Bareilly and the Sessions Trial of Case No.690 of 2005 at Lucknow involved similar issues. The three co-accused Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram, who had moved an application for discharge and which was allowed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 05.11.2007 was patently illegal as it was in teeth of the order passed by the High Court on 15.03.2007. It is urged that it was incumbent upon the trial court who have first summoned the three co- accused Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram and only thereafter the Sessions Trial Court could proceed and till such time they are issued notices further proceedings of Trial No.690 of 2005 be stayed.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case if the trial is not stayed, then it may give rise to incongruous result and may entail multiplicity of proceedings, accordingly the petitioner had moved an application bearing paper No.B-113, which came to be rejected on 07.11.2024 on in sufficient grounds and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition.

11. Shri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the petitioner is raising objections only with the motive to delay the trial. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the trial court who has also noticed that the present trial is one amongst the oldest and in terms of several orders passed by the High Court as well as the Apex Court, the Trial Court is to be concluded but for want of co-operation of the present petitioner, the trial is held up and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

13. Certain undisputed facts which emerge on the record are:- (i) The High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4797 of 2007 had directed that the records of Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 be transmitted to the Court at Lucknow who was seized of Sessions Trial No.690 of 2005; (ii) It is also an undisputed fact that despite the said order, the Sessions Court at Bareilly had passed an order dated 05.11.2007 discharging the three co-accused, namely, Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram; (iii) It is also an undisputed fact that the present petitioner had assailed the said order dated 05.11.2007 before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.24940 of 2008 at Allahabad. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the order passed by this Court at Allahabad dated 17.09.2008 and the same reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead as opposite parties Rampal, Lal Ram and Tula Ram Jatav. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly in S.T.No.376 of 2003 whereby the accused Rampal, Lala Ram and Tula Ram Jatav have been discharged for the offence under sections 323, 308, 304, 494, 411 IPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that this court had directed on 15.3.2007 that the record of this case be transferred to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where the S.T. No.690 of 2005 was pending. But after passing this order, the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly has discharged the accused Rampal, Lala Ram and Tula Ram Jatav on 5.11.2007. The order dated 5.11.2007 is illegal. It is submitted by Sri G.S. Hajela, counsel for the C.B.I. that the copy of the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by this Court was not communicated to the court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly that is why the order dated 5.11.2007 was passed. It is further submitted that a direction may be issued to transfer the record of S.T.376 of 2003 to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where S.T.No.690 of 2005 is pending. Issue notice to O.P.No.4, 5 and 6 returnable within four weeks. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., it is directed that the record of S.T.No.376 of 2003 shall be transmitted to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where S.T.N o.690 of 2005 is pending immediately after receiving the copy of this order. Office is directed to communicate the copy of order dated 15.03.2007 passed by this court in Crl. Misc. Application No.4797 of 2007, it has been filed as Annexure-2 to this application and copy of the present order to the court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Bareilly within three days for sending the record of S.T. No.376 of 2003 to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where the S.T.N o.690 of 2005 is pending. It is further directed that learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow shall expedite the proceeding of this case also, if possible, on day today basis. List on 17.11.2008." (iv) From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be evident that the Court while issuing notice to the private respondents had taken note of the fact that the records of Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 be immediately transmitted to the Court at Lucknow. It also stated that the Court at Lucknow shall expedite the proceedings of the case and if possible on day today basis; (v) It is also an undisputed fact that the aforesaid petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.11.2021 and the application for recall has been moved, however, no orders have been passed.

14. In light of the aforesaid undisputed fact, this Court finds that the order dated 05.11.2007 was in the noticed of the petitioner as he himself had challenged the said order before the High Court in petition No.24940 of 2008.

15. It was also in the notice of the petitioner himself that the High Court had directed the Sessions Trial at Lucknow to be expedited and to proceed if possible on day today basis. Since

17.09.2008 that is the date in the High Court passed the aforesaid order till 15.05.2024 when the petitioner filed the application bearing No.B-113, 16 years had lapsed and the petitioner never attempted to get the order dated 17.09.2008 modified nor attempted to get a stay on the Sessions Trial.

16. It is no doubt that the said application No.24940 of 2008 has been dismissed for want of prosecution and the petitioner has moved an application for recall but no orders have been passed. The legal position as obtained is that there is no legal impediment for the trial court from proceedings in the Sessions Trial.

17. Considering the fact that the expedite order was passed in the year 2008 and since then 16 years have lapsed and the trial has yet not concluded. Now moving the application after a lapse of 16 years seeking a stay on the trial by the trial court [to needless to say does not have the power to stay its own proceedings.] and without attempting to get an order of stay in the petition which too dismissed, it is not prudent for the petitioner to seek something indirectly which he failed to achieve directly.

18. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the trial court has noticed the aforesaid facts and found that the application No.B- 113 is not bonafide and has rejected the same.

19. This Court finds that there is no error in the order passed by the trial court coupled with the fact that the order dismissing the application No.B-113 was passed on 07.11.2024 and the instant petition has been filed after six months thereof also reflects much on the bonafidies attempt of the petitioner.

20. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy. ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 3.6.2025/ank

sessions court where trial commenced.

4. In the aforesaid background, one petition was filed before this Court at Allahabad bearing Misc. Case No.4797 of 2007, wherein the Court passed an order for transfer on 15.03.2007 directing the transfer of case bearing No.376 of 2003 to the appropriate court at Lucknow, who was seized with sessions trial No.690 of 2005 as both the trials involved similar questions.

5. It further appears that the transfer order passed by the High Court dated 15.03.2007 could not be brought to the notice of the Trial Judge, as a consequence, the three chargesheeted persons, namely, Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram filed an application seeking discharge which came to be allowed on

05.11.2007.

6. The present petitioner assailed the order dated 05.11.2007 by filing a petition bearing No.24940 of 2008 before this Court at Allahabad clearly stating therein that once the High Court had passed an order directing transfer of the Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 to Lucknow, hence the Trial Judge did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated 05.11.2007 discharging the three accused, namely, Lalal Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram.

7. The record further reflects that the High Court in the aforesaid Case No.24940 of 2008 had issued notices to the respondents no.4, 5 and 6 in the said petition and further directed the Sessions Court to be appraised of the order dated

15.03.2007.

8. The record further indicates that the said petition as mentioned aforesaid was dismissed for want of prosecution on

08.11.2021. The petitioner has moved an application seeking recall of the said order, which is still pending without any orders.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid backdrop of facts has urged that the issue involved in Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 which emanated in Bareilly and the Sessions Trial of Case No.690 of 2005 at Lucknow involved similar issues. The three co-accused Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram, who had moved an application for discharge and which was allowed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 05.11.2007 was patently illegal as it was in teeth of the order passed by the High Court on 15.03.2007. It is urged that it was incumbent upon the trial court who have first summoned the three co- accused Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram and only thereafter the Sessions Trial Court could proceed and till such time they are issued notices further proceedings of Trial No.690 of 2005 be stayed.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case if the trial is not stayed, then it may give rise to incongruous result and may entail multiplicity of proceedings, accordingly the petitioner had moved an application bearing paper No.B-113, which came to be rejected on 07.11.2024 on in sufficient grounds and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition.

11. Shri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the petitioner is raising objections only with the motive to delay the trial. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the trial court who has also noticed that the present trial is one amongst the oldest and in terms of several orders passed by the High Court as well as the Apex Court, the Trial Court is to be concluded but for want of co-operation of the present petitioner, the trial is held up and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

13. Certain undisputed facts which emerge on the record are:- (i) The High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4797 of 2007 had directed that the records of Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 be transmitted to the Court at Lucknow who was seized of Sessions Trial No.690 of 2005; (ii) It is also an undisputed fact that despite the said order, the Sessions Court at Bareilly had passed an order dated 05.11.2007 discharging the three co-accused, namely, Lala Ram, Ram Pal and Tula Ram; (iii) It is also an undisputed fact that the present petitioner had assailed the said order dated 05.11.2007 before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.24940 of 2008 at Allahabad. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the order passed by this Court at Allahabad dated 17.09.2008 and the same reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead as opposite parties Rampal, Lal Ram and Tula Ram Jatav. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly in S.T.No.376 of 2003 whereby the accused Rampal, Lala Ram and Tula Ram Jatav have been discharged for the offence under sections 323, 308, 304, 494, 411 IPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that this court had directed on 15.3.2007 that the record of this case be transferred to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where the S.T. No.690 of 2005 was pending. But after passing this order, the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly has discharged the accused Rampal, Lala Ram and Tula Ram Jatav on 5.11.2007. The order dated 5.11.2007 is illegal. It is submitted by Sri G.S. Hajela, counsel for the C.B.I. that the copy of the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by this Court was not communicated to the court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly that is why the order dated 5.11.2007 was passed. It is further submitted that a direction may be issued to transfer the record of S.T.376 of 2003 to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where S.T.No.690 of 2005 is pending. Issue notice to O.P.No.4, 5 and 6 returnable within four weeks. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., it is directed that the record of S.T.No.376 of 2003 shall be transmitted to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where S.T.N o.690 of 2005 is pending immediately after receiving the copy of this order. Office is directed to communicate the copy of order dated 15.03.2007 passed by this court in Crl. Misc. Application No.4797 of 2007, it has been filed as Annexure-2 to this application and copy of the present order to the court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Bareilly within three days for sending the record of S.T. No.376 of 2003 to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow where the S.T.N o.690 of 2005 is pending. It is further directed that learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow shall expedite the proceeding of this case also, if possible, on day today basis. List on 17.11.2008." (iv) From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be evident that the Court while issuing notice to the private respondents had taken note of the fact that the records of Sessions Trial No.376 of 2003 be immediately transmitted to the Court at Lucknow. It also stated that the Court at Lucknow shall expedite the proceedings of the case and if possible on day today basis; (v) It is also an undisputed fact that the aforesaid petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.11.2021 and the application for recall has been moved, however, no orders have been passed.

14. In light of the aforesaid undisputed fact, this Court finds that the order dated 05.11.2007 was in the noticed of the petitioner as he himself had challenged the said order before the High Court in petition No.24940 of 2008.

15. It was also in the notice of the petitioner himself that the High Court had directed the Sessions Trial at Lucknow to be expedited and to proceed if possible on day today basis. Since

17.09.2008 that is the date in the High Court passed the aforesaid order till 15.05.2024 when the petitioner filed the application bearing No.B-113, 16 years had lapsed and the petitioner never attempted to get the order dated 17.09.2008 modified nor attempted to get a stay on the Sessions Trial.

16. It is no doubt that the said application No.24940 of 2008 has been dismissed for want of prosecution and the petitioner has moved an application for recall but no orders have been passed. The legal position as obtained is that there is no legal impediment for the trial court from proceedings in the Sessions Trial.

17. Considering the fact that the expedite order was passed in the year 2008 and since then 16 years have lapsed and the trial has yet not concluded. Now moving the application after a lapse of 16 years seeking a stay on the trial by the trial court [to needless to say does not have the power to stay its own proceedings.] and without attempting to get an order of stay in the petition which too dismissed, it is not prudent for the petitioner to seek something indirectly which he failed to achieve directly.

18. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the trial court has noticed the aforesaid facts and found that the application No.B- 113 is not bonafide and has rejected the same.

19. This Court finds that there is no error in the order passed by the trial court coupled with the fact that the order dismissing the application No.B-113 was passed on 07.11.2024 and the instant petition has been filed after six months thereof also reflects much on the bonafidies attempt of the petitioner.

20. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy. ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 3.6.2025/ank