Justice Arvind Srivastava retires from Patna High Court after eight years

Justice Arvind Srivastava (62) served as judge of Patna High Court for eight years from December 2016 to April 3, 2024. There was a Full Court Farewell Reference on  April 3, in the Centenary Hall of Patna High Court in t.he honour of Justice Srivastava, who superannuate on that day.

He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Patna High Court on December 9, 2016. During December 14, 2016- February 23, 2024, he was part of High Court's benches which delivered 1731 judgements. The number of judgements authored by him requires research.

On March 24, 2017, in his judgement, he observed that the petitioner's argument advanced by his counsel has force. "The Magistrate while passing the order impugned did not take into consideration the order of this Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994 whereby the Court below was directed to make further preliminary enquiry in the matter. The Court below was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the report of the preliminary enquiry as also the result of the enquiry being held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur" in Asharafi Singh v. State of Bihar.  He concluded, "the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Sri Ravi Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali in Case No. C1-149/92, Trial No. 3689 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the petitioner and others for offence under section 420, 423/34 of the Indian Penal code and summoned them for their appearance ignoring the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994, is set aside and the matter is again sent back to the Court below for disposing of the matter in accordance with law taking into consideration the further preliminary enquiry as also the result of the enquiry held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur, as directed earlier vide order dated 23.02.1995 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994."

In this case the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High  ourt with prayer to quash the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Ravi Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali in Case No. C1-149/92, Trial No. 3689 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Magistrate has found a prima facie case
against the petitioner and others for offence under section 420, 423/34 of the Indian Penal code and summoned them for their appearance ignoring the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 23.02.1995, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with others approached the complaint with request that his presence was required for attesting a sale deed as witness. However, by playing fraud, petitioner and others obtained his signature/thumb impression on several written stamp papers. Later he came to know that they got executed sale deed of his land for a consideration money of Rs. 40,000/- whereas the complainant was paid only a sum of Rs. 20,000/.  The petitioner's counsel submitted that upon investigation, police submitted final form coming to the conclusion that all the three sale deeds were voluntarily executed by the complainant after obtaining permission from the competent authorities and thus, found the case to be false. It was submitted that on protest being filed by the complainant, cognizance under section 420, 468/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken. Thereafter, petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 1881 of 1994 before the High Court praying for quashing the order taking cognizance. The Court vide order dated 23.02.1995 had set aside the order taking cognizance dated 11.01.1994 and remitted back the matter to the Court below for disposal in accordance with law after further preliminary enquiry and taking into consideration the result of the enquiry being held by the District Sub Registrar, Hajipur. It was submitted that the District Sub Registrar after hearing the parties and after enquiry vide order dated 29.12.1995 found all the three sale deeds genuine which was approved by the Collector. The counsel submitted that the Magistrate while taking cognizance neither made any preliminary enquiry nor considered the result of the enquiry done by the District Sub Registrar. The counsel further submitted that the order impugned suffer from non-application of mind and is in utter violation of the orders of the High Court.

On May 11, 2018, in Shital Yadav v. State of Bihar, Justice Srivastava found that "the judgment of conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2012/19.05.2012, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2006 arising out of Sikandra P.S. Case No. 168 of 2005, is, hereby, set aside and the appeals are allowed. Since the appellants are in custody and the judgment of their conviction and sentence has been set aside, it is directed to release them forthwith, if not wanted in any other case."  The appeals had arisen out of judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2012/19.05.2012, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2006 arising out of Sikandra P.S. Case No. 168 of 2005, whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentenced have been directed to run concurrently.

In Lalu Yadav v. State of Bihar, Justice Srivastava delivered a judgement on May 14, 2019 ordering release of the appellant on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 235 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. He set aside the order in question. The appellant had sought a pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(IRS) 3/2-(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent. There is specific allegation against co-accused persons. The appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 

In one of the last acts of adjudication in 2024, his name figures as part of the division bench comprising Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra which gave the judgement in Subodh Yadav v. State of Bihar.  

On February 5, 2024, as part of a division bench, Justice Arvind Srivastava concluded that "there is no error in the decision of the Trial Court and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself" in Chhote Lal Rai v. State of Bihar. The criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal dated September 19, 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2015 arising out of Aurai P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the respondent nos. 2 to 6 (Ajay Rai, Dillep Rai, Nand Kishore Rai, Rakesh Rai and Umesh Rai) were have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prior to his elevation as judge of the High Court, he had joined Bihar Superior Judicial Service as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1997, became the District & Sessions Judge of Kaimur in 2006 and District & Sessions Judge of Muzaffapur in 2011. He joined as Senior Legal Adviser to the Bihar State Electricity Board in 2008 and as Secretary to Lokayukta of Bihar in 2013.  He completed his LL.B. Degree from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. He had enrolled as an advocate in 1985. He used to deal with civil matters in the District Court, Varanasi.