Dismissed¶¶16

State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. v. Mahaveer

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 11); Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:49744; Government Appeal Defective No. 7 of 2024; State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs Mahaveer; Order dated 23.7.2024; Section 18, The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; appeal by State against acquittal; condonation of delay allowed; acquittal held not perverse; no interference; Government Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the Government Appeal condoned; the Government Appeal dismissed, with no interference in the order of acquittal passed by the learned court below. ¶¶16

State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Vs Mahaveer — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the Government Appeal condoned; the Government Appeal dismissed, with no interference in the order of acquittal passed by the learned court below.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government Appeal filed by the State under Section 18 of the Act, 1986 against the acquittal of the respondent warrants interference with the order of the learned court below. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The learned A.G.A.'s argument that the court below patently erred in law in exonerating the respondent was found to be patently misconceived: prosecution witness no. 1 indicated only a single incident; the respondent proved that in all cases lodged against him he had been exonerated/acquitted and no violence, intimidation or coercion was found against him; and the court below found that no property or collection of money was demonstrated by the State.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The application for condonation of delay in filing the Government Appeal was allowed and the delay was condoned.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the order of the learned court below is perverse; no case for interference with the acquittal is made out.ratio¶¶15
The Government Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Government Appeal (Defective) under Section 18 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — State's appeal against order dated 05.02.2024 of the Special Judge, Gangster Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao acquitting the respondent in Special Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2012 (State vs Mahavir) — delay in filing condoned (I. A. No. 1 of 2024) — contention of learned A.G.A. that the court below patently erred in exonerating the respondent held patently misconceived: (i) PW-1 indicated only a single incident; (ii) respondent proved he was exonerated/acquitted in all cases lodged against him and no violence, intimidation or coercion was found against him; (iii) no property or collection of money was demonstrated by the State — appellant failed to demonstrate that the order below is perverse — no case for interference made out — Government Appeal dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49744

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 7 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Respondent :- Mahaveer Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

(I. A. No. 1 of 2024)

¶6

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant government appeal supported with an affidavit.

¶7

On due consideration, the application is allowed.

¶8

The delay in filing the Government Appeal is hereby condoned.

¶9

Let regular number be allotted by the Office.

¶10

Order on the main Appeal

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The instant appeal has been filed by the State Government under Section 18 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) being aggrieved against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2012 in re: State vs Mahavir whereby the respondent has been acquitted.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued by contending that learned court below has patently erred in law in exonerating the respondent under the provisions of the Act 1986 without appreciating the facts and allegations as levelled against the respondent.

¶14

However, the aforesaid argument is found to be patently misconceived considering the fact that (a) in paragraph 14 of the judgement the prosecution witness no. 1 has only indicated about a single incident having occurred, (b) in paragraph 28 of the judgement although a list of cases lodged against the respondent had been indicated but the respondent herein successfully proved that in all the cases lodged against him he has been exonerated / acquitted and no violence, intimidation or coercion has been found against the respondent, (c) further in paragraph 34 of the judgement, learned court below has discussed threadbare to indicate that on account of allegations as levelled against the respondent herein no property or any collection of money has been demonstrated by the State.

¶15

Keeping in view the specific observations made by the learned court below and the appellant having failed to demonstrate that the order of learned court below is perverse, no case for interference is made out.

¶16

Accordingly, the government appeal is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. v. Mahaveer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. v. Mahaveer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kirti Sharma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Harijan and Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Bharose vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Virendra Prasad Tiwari and 97 Others vs Managing Director U.P. Forest. Cororation Arnay Vikash Bhawan Lko and 3 Others

Raqeeb Ahmad vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Amit Saxena vs U.P. Forest Corporation Lko. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others