The Allahabad High Court in the case Haji Mahboob Ahmad And Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow And Ors observed on Monday and granted 2 weeks’ time to the CBI and the State Government to file their objections on a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Special CBI Court at Lucknow which acquitted all 32 persons accused of hatching the criminal conspiracy behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque on December 6, 1992.
Originally, the petition was filed in 2021 as a criminal revision. The bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed and directed the plea to be treated as a criminal appeal on July 18, 2022.
In the present case, the petition has been filled challenging the Judgment of the Special CBI Judge S K Yadav (delivered on September 30, 2020) holding held that the demolition of the mosque was not premeditated and further it was stated that there was no criminal conspiracy behind it.
However, originally the verdict went in the Hindi language went on to acquit persons including prominent BJP leaders L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan Singh etc.
Two Ayodhya residents – Haji Mahmood Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, had filled the petition. The plea claimed to have witnessed the demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992.
On Monday, the bench comprising of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed and granted two weeks’ time to the CBI and CBI to file their objections to the Plea and the bench listed the matter for further hearing on September 5.
The court noted that on July 18, when the revision plea came before the single judge, the Senior Counsel Syed Farman Ali Naqvi submitted that by an inadvertent mistake, the revision had been filed by the revisionists, wherein they claimed to be the victims and in view of the Amendment made in Section 372 Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 31st December 2009. Thus, the revisionists ought to have preferred an appeal.
Further, it was submitted that in the exercise of the powers under section 401(5) Cr.P.C., this court may treat this revision as the appeal of the revisionists.
The Court while considering the aforesaid submission and after hearing the counsel, Shiv P.Shukla, appearing for the C.B.I., and the Counsel, Vimal Kumar Srivastava appearing for the respondent-State. The court directed the revision to be treated as an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C.
