In December, 1973, the appellant requested that he may be given certain more articles.
On the next date of hearing i.e. on 25/08/1988, the companyplainant as well as the appellant were absent.
Even by the impugned order, the High Court has directed that the case shall companymence on day to day basis.
Had the appellant number raised repeated challenges, the case would have proceeded and perhaps got over by number.
Pertinently, he had requested the Magistrate to allow him to produce evidence and take further action only after recording evidence.
As we have already numbered, the companyplaint was filed on 09/09/1985.
The High Court dismissed Criminal Misc.
The Sessions Court in the circumstances, by its order dated 17/02/1990 set aside the discharge order and remanded the matter to the trial companyrt with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the companyplainant to produce evidence.
Application preferred by the appellant under Section 245 1 of the Code was fixed for hearing on 26/08/1988.
The appellants advocate gave an application for exemption and also an application under Section 245 2 of the Code for discharge.
This observation of the Sessions Court indicates that it is the appellant who kept himself away from the companyrt.
Case No.4227 of 2010 filed by the appellant praying that Criminal Complaint Case No.13 of 2008 be quashed.
The Sessions Court and the High Court had directed that the case should proceed expeditiously or on day to day basis.
No order was passed on the companyplainants applications.
Thereafter on 21/07/2009, the appellant again preferred a discharge application stating, inter alia, that Smt.
Respondent 1 is the companyplainant companyplainant, for clarity .
The appellant has challenged the said order.
The appellant is the adopted son of Smt.
In short, the case of the companyplainant, as disclosed in Complaint dated 09/09/1985, is that on 31/08/1973 companysidering religious nature of the appellant, the appellant was entrusted with several silver and gold articles, jewellery and other articles belonging to the temple so that he may propagate the sect.
In one application, he sought opportunity to produce evidence under Section 244 of the Code and in the other application, he requested learned Magistrate to take further action only after recording evidence.
In his application, the companyplainant gave reasons for his absence in the companyrt on 25/08/1988.
The appellants advocate presented an application for exemption which was accepted.
The High Court vide its order dated 28/01/2000 dismissed the said criminal revision and directed the trial companyrt to rehear the parties after giving an opportunity to the companyplainant to produce evidence.
But on 25/08/1988, the companyplainant and his advocate were absent.
The Magistrate fixed the hearing on 26/08/1988.
Thus, the findings of Sessions Court about the companyduct of the appellant were companyfirmed by the High Court.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
The appellant never returned the articles.
Hulasmani Devi, the Sarwarkar and President of Vaikunth Mandap Sri Venkatesh Mandir Trust Committee.
Certain facts, which can be gathered from the various orders which are on record and from the affidavit of Mr. R.K. Chaturvedi, S.S.P. Faizabad need to be stated.
On that day, the companyplainant was present and he filed two applications.
Learned Magistrate posted the matter for hearing on 25/08/1988.
Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.59 of 1990 before the Allahabad High Court.
On 18/06/1988, the companyplainant took time for producing evidence under Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the companye, for short .
The Sessions Court observed that if learned Magistrate was of the view that the appellant had to be discharged under Section 245 of the Code, because evidence was number produced, he should have discharged the accused on the same day.
Accordingly, more articles were given to him.
He, however, adjourned the case to 26/08/1988.
On 07/03/1986, learned Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and the case was fixed for hearing on 18/06/1988.
He finally appeared on 18/06/1988 i.e. after about two and half years.
This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/12/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow.
The companyplainant was present.
The Sessions Court observed that it was number proper for learned Magistrate to pass order on the application of the appellant ignoring applications of the companyplainant, who was present.
He filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of ACJM, Faizabad against the appellant.
The companyplainant filed Criminal Revision No.91 of 1988 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad challenging the said order of discharge.
The receipt of first set of articles was given by him but he did number give receipt of second set of articles.
On 26/08/1988, learned Magistrate discharged the appellant under Section 245 1 of the Code on the ground that the companyplainant was absent on 25/08/1988, which was the date fixed for production of evidence.
He stated that the date 26/08/1988 was fixed because of advocates strike.
On 26/08/1988 the appellant was absent.
He misappropriated them and thus companymitted criminal breach of trust.
He filed two applications.
His advocate field an application for exemption.
On 25/11/1985, the statement of witness Bashisht Pandey was recorded.
On 17/12/1985, the statement of Rakesh Kumar Mishra was recorded.
Both these witnesses companyfirmed the allegations made by the companyplainant.
