MUNNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) AS this case; was passed over on last occasion on the reauest of the Counsel for the ppposite party, hence it was directed to be listed peremptorily in the next cause list. Today, it is listed peremptorily. ".

(3.) FIRSTLY it was argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the aforesaid order is not revisable and he has placed reliance on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Vanshu v. State of U. P. , 2007 (8) ADJ 277, passed by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. , who has relied on his earlier decision in Rakesh Puri and another v. State of U. P. , 2006 (56) ACC 516, for this proposition. His Lordship has sought to distinguish a Divisian Bench decision in the case of Ajay Malaviya v. State of U. P. , 2001 Cri LJ 313 and a Single Judge decision in Sabry. Jaswant, 2002 ALJ 226, by holding that the Division Bench decision in Ajay Malaviya and the Single Judge decision in Sab were 'perincuriam' as according to His Lord ship statutory provisions of Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C: have been violated.