Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Paras and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018GOVA/897/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents under sections 272 IPC and Sections 60/62/63 of the Excise Act. The High Court held that the lower court's findings were free from perversity and no case for interference was made out, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal rejected; appeal dismissed; lower court record sent back.

State of U.P. Vs Paras and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 897 of 2014

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Paras And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned AGA appearing for the State at length on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2013 by means of which the accused-respondents Paras, Ashok, Rajendra Singh & Heera have been acquitted by the offences under section 272 IPC and Section 60/62/63 of Excise Act.

¶7

We have also persued the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Without eloborating much on the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there are two findings as recorded by the court concerned which go to the routes and crux of the matter. The same is being extracted as here-in-below:-

¶8

ih0MCyw0&5 v'kksd dqekj frokjh foospukf/kdkjh gSA vius ftjg ds ist 3 ij foospukf/kdkjh }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd eSa ?kVuk ds le; oknh eqdnek dk v/khuLFk FkkA tc foospukf/kdkjh oknh ds v/khuLFk gS rks fu"i{k foospuk dh x;h gS] ;g rF; laUnsgkLij izrhr gksrk gSA cjken 'kqnk dfFkr 'kjkc dks fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk esa ijh{k.k ds fy, Hkh Hkstk x;k gSA ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa vYdksgy dh rhcz ek=k crk;h x;h gS vkSj ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ikuh fetykdj 'kjkc cuk;h tk ldrh gSA ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ds ;g rF; ugha gS fd mDr 'kjkc esa fc"k ;k vU;dksbZ thou dks [krjk iSnk djus okyh oLrq ekStwn FkkA vr% ;g 'kjkc Hkh tgjhyh 'kjkc ugha ik;h x;h gSA

¶9

mijksDr foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd ekSds ij 'kjkc ds Vsadj vkSj ikbi ds lkFk dsoy ,d O;fDr fnus'k idMk x;k FkkA fnus'k dh i=koyh fd'kksj vfHk;qDr ?kksf"kr djds fd'kksj U;k;ky; }kjk fd'kksj U;k;cksMZ esa fopkj.k ds fy, Hkst nh x;h gSA 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k ekSds ij ugha idMs x;s Fks mUgsa ns[kk tkukcrk;k x;k gSA ftu iqfyl dfeZ;ks }kjk ifgpkus tkus dh ckr dgha x;h gS mu iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dk uke QnZ cjkenxh esa vafdr ugha gS vkSj u gh mu iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA vkcxkjh fujh{kd }kjk 2 yksxksa jktsUnz o v'kksd dks ekSds ij ns[ks tkusdh ckr dgh x;h gSA ekSds ij ns[ks tkus o igpkuus dh ckr ugha dgh x;h gSA ekSds ij [kMk jgus ek= ls vfHk;qDr 'kjkc vius ikl j[kk Fkk] ;g rF; lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA ?kVuk 2 cts jkr dh crk;h x;h gSA vr% ekSds ij ns[ks tkus o ifgpku djus dh ckr Hkh lUnsgkLin gSA cjken'kqnk 'kjkc

¶10

¶11

fof/k oku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ esa tgjhyh ugha ik;h x;h gSA vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ftrus Hkh xokg is'k fd;s x;s mu xokgksa ds c;ku ls QnZ cjkenxh lkfcr ugha gksrh gSA bl rjg vfHk;kstu }kjk is'k fd;s x;s xokgksa ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 272 Hkk0n0la0 o /kkjk 60@62@63 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e lkfcr ugha gSA vfHk;qDrx.k nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶12

Learned A.G.A has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and, thus, it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.

¶14

Thus in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶16

The lower court record be sent back to the court concerned at the earliest. Dt.13.07.2018 SKD

State of U.P. v. Paras and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Paras and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Gangadhar and Others

State of U.P. Vs Chunnu @ Ravi Prakash and 2 Others

State of U.P. Vs Raju and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Narsu Alias Nasruddin and 5 Others

State of U.P. Vs Girraj Urf Babloo

State of U.P. Vs Mahavir and Others