Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 575 (ALL)

Rama Kant v. Superintendent of Police, Hardoi

2016-02-18

ADITYA NATH MITTAL, AJAI LAMBA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of cer-tiorari quashing First Information Report lodged as Case Crime No. 0530 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kasimpur, District-Hardoi (Annexure No. 1). 2. Short affidavit has been filed in Court on behalf of the Prosecuting Agency alongwith the evidences collected in the course of investigation The affidavit is taken on record. 3. In the affidavit, in paras 6 to 8 the following stand has been taken or behalf of the Prosecuting Agency: "(6) That during the course of investigation, statement of first informant Yogendra Kumar, Supply Inspector Sandeela, Hardoi, statement of the compLalnant, Ram Das (Ex-Pradhan) and c: few Card Holders, namely, Juddh: Kushal, Heeralal, Bachey Lal and Chatr: Pal were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that the petitioner who was the Fair Price She? Dealer of village-Kakainduwa, Police Station-Kasimpur, District-Hardoi use to forge the Ration Card and Distribution Register by making wrong entries of tributing Rice, Wheat, Sugar and Kerosene Oil to the BPL, Antyodaya and APL Card Holders. The copies of the statement of first informant, compLalnant and few Card Holders recorded under Section Cr.P.C. are annexed herewith as Anne ure Nos. CA-1 to CA-7. (7) That further it is stated that the petitioner used to sell the Essential modifies beyond their prescribed and used to measure them less to its original weight. Apart from this the petitioner had given an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandeela, Hardoi on which a forged seal of Police Station-Kasimpur has been affixed. During the course of investigation, it was found that no such seal was affixed by the concerned police station. The statement the concerned Constable Clerk who was posted on the said date was recc under Section 161, Cr.P.C. A typed of the statement of the concerned I -stable Clerk is annexed herewith Annexure No. CA-8. (8) That, it is relevant to men their about 27 Card Holders have given their affidavits to the Department of For Civil Supplies, U.P., Lucknow with allegations that the petitioner has forcefully taken away their Ration Cards and is not returning back. The copies of the 27 affidavits and details of the missing Ration Cards are annexed here with as Annexure Nos. CA-9 to CA-36. The copies of the 27 affidavits and details of the missing Ration Cards are annexed here with as Annexure Nos. CA-9 to CA-36. Apart from this 15 Card Holders have also stated in their affidavits that they have not received the ration for the last 3 months." 4. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a simple case under Essential Commodities Act is sought to be converted into a case of cheating and forgery. 5. We have considered the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Prosecuting Agency. 6. From the above extracted paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, it has prima facie become evident that petitioner was a Fair Price Shop Dealer and used to forge Ration Cards and would make fabricated entries in Distribution Register. It has further been made prima facie evident that the petitioner has given an application to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandeela, District-Hardoi, on which, a forged seal of Police-Station-Kasimpur was affixed. As many as 27 Card Holders have given their affidavits with the allegation that the petitioner forcibly took their Ration Cards and is not returning them. 7. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment except that we still have doubt about the murder of driver Kanhaiya Lal in the entire scenario, nonetheless, we confirm holding the guilt of murder of Munish Kumar Agarwal alongwith his accountant Devendra Gangwar as well as commission of dacoity by these appellants. We, thus, feel that it would not be conclusive to hold all these appellants guilty for the murder of driver Kanhaiya Lal. However, even if assuming that Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, the driver, may still be alive, but feel that the gravity of offence, where-for the appellants have been found guilty and convicted, is not mitigated because after all, they have committed the murder of at least two innocent persons in a brutal manner alongwith the dacoity. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, all the five appeals are devoid of any merit and are thus, dismissed accordingly. Accused/ appellants shall serve out the sentence, so awarded to them. 9. Let a copy of this judgment and order alongwith the LCR be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Appeal Dismissed.