Allowed

Seth Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021WRIA/1338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition rejecting a police appointment order. The court held that the petitioner's acquittal was clean, not by default, as prosecution failed to prove its case. The rejection order violating principles of criminal jurisprudence was set aside. The appointing authority was directed to verify character and grant appointment if eligible.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order was set aside. The appointing authority is directed to verify the petitioner's character and grant appointment if he is otherwise eligible.

Seth Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1338 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Seth Pal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel for the state respondent.

¶6

The order impugned is dated 10.12.2020, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad to reject the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable Civil Police in the Direct Recruitment, 2018.

¶7

It is stated that having cleared all stages of examination, the petitioner was selected as an eligible candidate. However, appointment was not given to him on the ground that in a criminal case in Case Crime No. 661 of 2014, Sessions Trial No.221 of 2016 under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504, 427, and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Devband District- Saharanpur, he had been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2016 by giving benefit of doubt.

¶8

In the order impugned there is a reference of the report dated 20.10.2020 of the Joint Director Prosecution, DistrictSaharanpur which states that the petitioner did not conceal the said fact. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur gave a report dated 20.11.2020 that the petitioner had been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2016 by giving benefit of doubt. It is also indicated therein that no appeal had been filed by the State against the order of acquittal.

¶9

The order impugned further records that in view of the report of the District Magistrate, verification of character of the petitioner was not done and in accordance with Rule 16(2) of the Rules of the Gazette dated 14.01.2011 in case of any adverse report against the selected candidate regarding his character, he can be denied appointment. The appointing authority further records that since the petitioner had been an accused in a serious offence of harassment of a scheduled caste person and he had been acquitted by the competent court by giving benefit of doubt, he is not eligible to be appointed in police force.

¶10

Placing the reasoning given in the order impugned and the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 26.07.2016, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of clean acquittal, inasmuch as, the complainant, who appeared in the witness box as PW-1, could not prove the occurrence. Serious contradictions were found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The concerned Court had reached at the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond doubt.

¶11

In the said circumstance, the opinion formed by the appointing authority is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence that is, an accused is innocent unless proven guilty.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, to defend the order impugned submits that without verification of the character of a selected candidate, it is not possible for the appointing authority to give appointment. When the character verification report was sought from the district magistrate, Saharanpur, he narrating the lodging of the report and the order of the criminal Court, did not verify the character of the petitioner.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the judgment and order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Court in the aforesaid criminal case. Relevant findings in the said judgment are noted hereunder:

¶14

"............ववाददी पदी०डब्ल्यय० 1 दवारवा ममुख्य परदीकवा मम ततो अभभियतोजन कथवानक कवा समथरन भकयवा गयवा हह , परन्तमु इस सवाकदी दवारवा प्रभतपरदीकवा मम भभिन -भभिन व भवरतोधवाभिवासदी कथन भकयये हह। प्रभतपरदीकवा मम सवाकदी पदी०डब्ल्यय०-1 दवारवा कथन भकयवा गयवा हह भक "ममुझये ध्यवान नहहीं हह भक भिदीड़ मम भकतनये लतोग शवाभमल थये , ममुझये यह भिदी ध्यवान नहदी हह भक भिदीड़ मम सये भकसनये मयेरये सवाथ मवारपदीट ककी थदी और भकस भकस नये जवाभत सयचक शब्ददों कवा प्रयतोग करकये धमककी ददी थदी। ममुझये नहहीं मवालयम भक तहरदीर मम क्यवा ललख हह , क्यदोंभक महनये भबिनवा पढये हदी हस्तवाकर बिनवा भदयये थये। मह पढवा ललखवा नहदी ह ह । ममुझये यह भिदी ध्यवान नहदी हह भक पमुललस नये मयेरवा बियवान कबि और कहवाहां ललयवा थवा। महनये तहरदीर ललखनये ववालये कतो सयेठपवाल , जतोनदी, कवान्हवा व गतोतम कये नवाम नहदी बितवायये थये।................

¶15

.............इस प्रकवार अभभियतोजन ककी ओर सये परदीभकत ववाददी पदी०डब्ल्यय० -1 दवारवा प्रभतपरदीकवा मम भकयये गयये उपरतोक्त भभिन-भभिन व भवरतोधवाभिवासदी कथनदों व शयेष सवाकदीगण पदी०डब्ल्यय० -2 लगवायत पदी०डब्ल्यय०-4 दवारवा अभभियतोजन कथवानक कवा समथरन नवा भकयये जवानम व सवाकदीगण दवारवा प्रभतपरदीकवा मम ककी गयदी स्वदीरतोभक्तयदों कये प्रकवाश मम अभभियतोजन पक अभभियमुक्तगण जतोनदी, सयेठपवाल, कवान्हवा व गतोतम दवारवा भदनवाहांक 30-08-2014 कतो समय 12-30 बिजये भदन स्थवान गवाम इसमवाईल पमुर गमुज र अन्तगरत कयेत्र थवानवा दयेवबिन्द लजलवा सहवारनपमुर मम ववाददी रजनदीश कतो थप्पड़ ममुक्कदों सये मवारपदीट कर सवाधवारण चतोटम पह ह चवायवा जवानवा , मवारपदीट कर उसककी हडदी ततोड़ कर गम्भिदीर उपहभत कवाररत भकयवा जवानवा , ववाददी ककी मतोटर सवाईभकल ततोडवा जवानवा , ववाददी कतो गन्ददी गवाललयवाहां दयेकर लतोक शवानन्त भिहांग करनये कये आशय सये अपमवाभनत भकयवा जवानवा व ववाददी रजनदीश कतो अनमुसयभचत

¶16

जवाभत शब्द सये सम्बितोलधत कर अपमवाभनत भकयवा जवानवा सन्दयेह सये परये सवाभबित करनम मम पयणरततः असफल रहवा हह।"

¶17

A careful reading of the same indicates that the complainant, who appeared in the witness box as PW-1, made contradictory statements in his oral examination and cross-examination. He could not substantiate his version of occurrence of the incident and involvement of accused persons in the oral examination. Other witnesses (PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4) were declared hostile as they resiled from their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The first information report had been lodged against 14 named persons and 10 unknown, whereas after investigation, only four persons were named in the chargesheet. It was then recorded by the trial Court that from the evidence furnished by the prosecution, the involvement of four named accused in the charge-sheet submitted by the police was not proved by the prosecution. The Court had recorded that the investigation was also faulty. The prosecution case, therefore, was found doubtful.

¶18

Having noted the above facts, the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the last line of the judgment, it is noted that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. The observation of the Sessions Court in this regard is noted as under:

¶19

"भनष्कषरततः सन्दयेह कवा लवाभि पवातये हहए अभभियमुक्तगण लगवायये गयये अपरवाधदों कये आरतोपदों सये दतोष ममुक्त भकयये जवानये यतोग्य हह।"

¶20

The first principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is treated as an innocent unless prosecution proves him guilty. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the criminal charges against the accused. In case the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, the benefit of acquittal has to be given to the accused.

¶21

In the aforesaid criminal case, the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the occurrence and, thus, involvement of the petitioner in an incident wherein the first information report was lodged against 24 persons. In view of the findings of the Sessions Court, it cannot be said to be an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, rather it was a clean acquittal. The last line of the jdugment and order dated 26.07.2016 noted above, cannot be read to mean that the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and, therefore, a doubt can be raised on his character.

¶22

The reason given in the order impugned dated 10.12.2020 for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the

¶23

post of Constable, therefore, is found wholly illegal. The same is hereby set aside.

¶24

The appointing authority is hereby directed to verify the character of the petitioner from the district Magistrate concerned and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, for grant of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Constable Civil Police, in case he is otherwise eligible.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is allowed .

¶26

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 P Kesari

Seth Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seth Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Chahar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others