Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Sewak v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 11728 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 595 (10 January 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11728 of 2006

Ram Sewak


State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Proceedings under Rules 14(2) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 was sought to be initiated against the petitioner on the ground that in the year 2004 when petitioner was posted at Police Station Mudaali, District Meerut then at that point of time Case Crime No.39,40,41 of 2004 under Sections 3/4/8 Cow Slaughter Act  and under Section 153-A IPC read with Section 25/4 Indian Arms Act was registered and investigation of the same was entrusted and undertaken by the petitioner. In the said criminal case accused persons were taken on remand up to 03.06.2004 under Section under Sections 3/4/8 Cow Slaughter Act  and under Section 153-A IPC read with Section 25/4 Indian Arms Act  whereas charge sheet against them was submitted being Charge SheetNo. 30,31,32 and 33, on 02.05.2004 under Sections 3/4/8 Cow Slaughter Act  and read with Section 25/4 Indian Arms Act and Section 153-A was deleted and in this background petitioner was charge sheeted for deleting Section 153-A deliberately in order to extend benefit to accused persons and qua this fact it has been mentioned that same reflected great carelessness, inaction and indiscipline on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner was issued show cause notice. Authority concerned thereafter on 12.10.2004 after considering the reply so submitted by the petitioner concluded that Section 153-A IPC was got deliberately removed. Against the said order petitioner preferred Appeal and the said Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter Revision was preferred and the said Revision was also dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and it has been contended that petitioner has been found guilty as such no interference is made.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and that of writ petition has been reiterated.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for hearing and disposal.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case opinion which has been formed against the petitioner is unsustainable as petitioner at no point of time has ever deleted Section 153-A IPC intentionally as there was no evidence qua offence under Section 153-A IPC as such rightful decision has been taken by the petitioner as such by no stretch of imagination petitioner could have been punished in this background, writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that authorities have come to the conclusion that there was deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner in deleting Section 153-A IPC and the circumstances are speaking for itself as such no interference be made and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging to the effect that petitioner was Inquiry Officer in Case Crime No.39,40,41 of 2004 under Sections 3/4/8 Cow Slaughter Act  and under Section 153-A IPC read with Section 25/4 Indian Arms Act for investigating said case which was entrusted to him on 11.04.2004. At all point of time when remand of accused persons were being taken Section 153-A IPC was there. It was only when charge-sheet has been filed on 02.5.2004 then Section 153-A IPC has been deleted. offence under section 153-A IPC by no stretch of imagination could have been investigated by the petitioner and in all eventuality investigation ought to have been transferred. Petitioner at no point of time ever gave information to his superior officers that offence under Section 153-A IPC could not be examined by him as he was not competent to investigate the said offence. Petitioner in his turn has been taking remand including Section 153-A IPC and thereafter while submitting charge-sheet said Section 153-A has been deleted. Authorities in their wisdom on the basis of material available on record have concluded that it was deliberate exercise on the part of the petitioner. Once the authorities have recorded categorical finding of fact against the petitioner then this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as Court of Appeal and give altogether different finding. Consequently there is no error whatsoever in the order which has been passed.

At last petitioner has contended that pursuant to judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2614 (SS) of 2004 (Virendra Vs. State of U.P. there is no authority with the respondents to award punishment of censor. It would be relevant to note that said judgment has already been referred to the Large Bench of this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16436 of 2005 (Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others).

Consequently present writ petition is dismissed. However it is made clear that in case reference which has been made is answered to the effect that there punishment of censor cannot be accorded then in that event benefit of said judgment be also extended to the petitioner.  





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.