Allahabad High Court
UJJWAL AMBESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s order, finding the service of notices valid and the appellant’s right to be heard duly satisfied.
Summary
The appellant, Ujjwal Ambesh, challenged the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) which dismissed his complaint after multiple investigations found no offence. The trial court detailed that several notices were served to the appellant at his residence, locked house, workplace, and personally, all deemed valid under settled law. Despite these notices, the appellant did not raise any objection, and the investigation repeatedly yielded no substantive material, leading to a final report of no offence. The court held that the appellant was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and that the service of notices was proper. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the notices served on the appellant constituted valid service of notice under law.
- Whether the appellant was denied a proper opportunity of hearing during the investigation.
Subjects
- service of notice
- criminal appeal
- procedural fairness
- SC/ST Act
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2430 of 2019
Ujjwal Ambesh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anshu Chaudhary, Kaushlesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Nigam, G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State,
and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order
dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baghpat, in Criminal Misc. Case No.
41 of 2018/F.R. No. 196 of 2015 (Ujjwal Ambesh vs. Vinod Sharma and
others).
3. The learned trial court has specifically held, at page no. 3 of the
judgment, that after submission of the final report, notices were issued to
the appellant/complainant (Ujjwal) on 08.10.2018, 17.10.2018,
29.10.2018, and 13.12.2018. With regard to the notice dated 08.10.2018,
it was reported that the notice had been served at the residence of the
complainant, and his mother, Smt. Kamlesh Ambesh, had informed the
complainant about the date and place of hearing. At the relevant time, the
complainant was posted as Additional Chief Officer at Zila Panchayat,
Kashganj.
4. With respect to the second notice dated 17.10.2018, a report was
received from the concerned police station stating that the notice was sent
to the address of the complainant/appellant, but the house was found
locked. It is settled law that where the premises are found locked, service
may be treated as sufficient, and a party cannot avoid service by
remaining unavailable.
CRLA No. 2430 of 2019
2
5. In respect of the notice dated 29.10.2018, it was reported that the notice
was served through a Head Constable. Since the complainant/appellant
was not present in his office on 05.11.2018, a photocopy of the notice was
submitted at his office, and he was duly informed telephonically about the
same. As the complainant is a government employee, it is also settled that
service at the place of employment can be treated as valid service.
6. The notice dated 13.12.2018 was personally served upon the
complainant/appellant.
7. During the entire investigation, nothing substantive was found. Despite
several notices having been issued to the complainant/appellant, he did
not file any objection. Adequate and proper opportunity of hearing was
provided to him. The matter was investigated, and a final report was
submitted, finding no offence. Thereafter, further investigation was
ordered, and statements of the complainant as well as the opposite parties
were recorded.
8. Even upon further investigation, no substantive material was found,
and a supplementary final report was submitted. After submission of the
same, notices were again issued on four occasions to the
complainant/appellant, which were duly served upon him. The learned
trial court has elaborately recorded these facts at page no. 3 of the
impugned order dated 05.01.2019. Even thereafter, the
complainant/appellant failed to file any objection.
9. There is no substance in the present criminal appeal.
10. The impugned order dated 05.01.2019 is hereby affirmed.
11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
April 15, 2026
K.K. Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…