Checking Whether A Judgment Has Been Overruled Is Very Easy Nowadays: Allahabad High Court Asks Counsel Who Cited Overruled Judgment To Be Careful In Future

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. challenging the validity of an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge MP/MLA, in a case registered under Sections 406, 506, 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the trial court ordered for returning the pen-drive and cheques to the Investigating Officer for getting the same examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and submitting its report.

In light of the fact that the applicant’s counsel had cited overruled judgments, the Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said, “In present times, when the judgments are available on online portals, checking whether a judgment has been overruled, is very easy compared to the previous times when the judgments were available only in journals published in book forms and there was a possibility of a person missing the subsequent judgment overruling a previous judgment. Nowadays, the online portals prominently highlight that a particular judgment has been overruled and, in these circumstances, citing an overruled judgment is a matter of even greater concern. The learned Counsel for the applicant is cautioned to be careful in future and not repeat this conduct.”

Advocate Dhirendra Pratap Singh represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The aforesaid case was registered based on an FIR lodged against the applicant, his brother and his brother-in-law, stating that the accused persons had extracted Rs 9 lakh from the informant for getting his brother employed in a Government Service, and they had handed over a forged joining letter of Fertiliser Corporation of India. Upon coming to know about the fraud committed by the accused persons, the informant demanded the return of his money. They gave a cheque which was returned by the bank unpaid.

The Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons for offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and 138 of the NI Act. The trial court took cognizance of the offence, and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. The Investigating Officer requested the court to make available the pen-drive and the cheques which were a part of the case diary, for being forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Trial Court accepted the application, ordered the return of the pendrive and the cheques to the Investigating Officer for being examined by the Laboratory. This order was challenged before the High Court.

Reasoning

Reference was made by the Bench to the judgment in Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2023) wherein it has been mentioned that investigation is very distinct from the reinvestigation/de novo investigation or fresh investigation. It has been observed therein that further investigation can be carried out even without any permission from the Magistrate concerned. However, fresh, de-novo or reinvestigation cannot be done without the specific orders of the competent court.

The Bench was thus of the view that the trial court had acted well within its jurisdiction to order examination of the pen-drive and cheques in question by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, to enable it to arrive at a just decision in the matter.

“The inherent powers of this Court under Section 582 BNSS are meant to be exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Any interference in the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the trial court would not secure the ends of justice, rather it will create an unwarranted hurdle in securing the ends of justice”, it said.

Finding no illegality warranting interference with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the application under Section 582 BNSS.

Cause Title: Rohit Rajput v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:34233)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Opposite Party: G.A.

Click here to read/download Order