SATWANT SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Satwant Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 61936 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19216 (14 November 2006)

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61936 of 2006

Swatantra Singh

  Vs.

State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

On 27.05.2006, applications were invited for recruitment in P.A.C. Petitioner applied and was selected. He was sent on training. On 02.09.2006, petitioner was asked to give an affidavit and respective format was supplied to him. Petitioner made categorical statement  of fact that at no point of time he has ever been prosecuted in any criminal case, nor has he been charge sheeted in any criminal case. Petitioner started his training and in the  mids of his training, he has been served with an order dated 14.10.2006 by the Commandant 39 Bn. P.A.C. Mirzapur, mentioning therein that in the process of character verification, it has been revealed that against petitioner   NCR No. 74 of 2005 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. had been lodged and proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.  at  police station Ahroura, District Mirzapur had been registered. In view of this report being submitted, the facts disclosed in the affidavit by the petitioner, that no criminal case was registered against him, has been presumed to have been concealed by the petitioner, as such services of petitioner has been dispensed with.

Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence, that at no point of time in NCR No. 74 of 2005 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.  at  police station Ahroura, District Mirzapur, name of petitioner figured. At no point of time any enquiry was made from the petitioner; and at no point of time any arrest had been made  or petitioner had been summoned by any court/police. In this background, petitioner submits that when he has no notice, knowledge or information of the aforesaid proceedings, as such averments of the affidavit submitted by petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect, and the action taken against petitioner is totally unjustified action.  

As to whether petitioner had any notice, knowledge or information of the aforementioned proceedings or not, is essentially a question of fact, as such liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation before the Commandant 39th Bn. P.A.C. Mirzapur, within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.  On such a representation being made, the Commandant will get the enquiry and investigation made afresh qua the notice to petitioner of said proceeding, and thereafter, shall take appropriate decision on the same, in accordance with law, within six weeks  from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.

In terms of above observations and direction, writ petition is disposed of.      

14.11.2006

SRY

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 |

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