# Ajay Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 187 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42959
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section 374(2)- Criminal Appealagainst conviction under section 326
I.P.C.-appeal on ground-if prosecution
case admitted as it is-no offence under
section 326 IPC made out-as non of the
contingencies specified in Section 320
made out-at most can be offence under
section 324 IPC punishable with 3 years.
R.I held-weapon used for assult an

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tribunal shall release the compensation
awarded within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
the present order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 187 of
2012

Ajay Chaudhary.... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satya Prakash Shukla
Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation
of license of Tari Shop-on ground of
pendancy of criminal case-in proforma-G28-admittedly
no
conviction
against
petitioner
passed
as
yet-absence
of
requirement to disclose the pendancy of
criminal case-petitioner can not be guilty
for suppression of facts-held-cancellation
wholly illegal-quashed.

Held: Para-8 & 9
8. Once the respondents themselves do not
require
any
information
regarding
pendency
of
criminal
case,
petitioner
cannot be saddled with the responsibility
that he must disclose it and failing to do so
would justify an inference of concealment
of a relevant information that a criminal
case is pending against him.

9. Even otherwise, mere pendency of
criminal case has no connection with the
terms and conditions, which has to be
stated/disclosed by applicant in the
affidavit.
Therefore,
in
my
view,
respondents have acted wholly illegally
and the impugned orders cannot sustain.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. The writ petition having been
restored vide order of date passed on
Restoration Application, as requested by
learned counsels for parties, I proceed to
decide this matter finally at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla,
counsel
for
petitioner
and
learned
Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. Petitioner was granted licence for
Tari shop on 26.3.2010. Thereafter some
complaint appears to be made against
petitioner that Criminal Case No. 31 of
1998 under Sections 323, 324, 504 and
506 I.P.C. Police Station Jaitpura, District
Varanasi is pending in the Court of First
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi, whereupon a show cause notice
was issued on 5.5.2010, which he replied
stating that in terms of Para 4 of Proforma
G-28, he is not a person convicted under
the statutes stated therein and therefore,
there is nothing wrong in grant of licence
to him.

4. Though respondent no. 3 held that
the grant of licence in favour of petitioner in
just and valid, but in appeal Excise
Commissioner passed an order on 21.9.2011
cancelling licence. Thereagainst petitioner
preferred Revision No. 30 of 2011 which has
been dismissed by State Government by
impugned order dated 6.1.2012.

5. The short question argued by
learned counsel for petitioner is that there
is no requirement that petitioner has to
disclose pendency of criminal case and,
1 All] Ajay Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
157
therefore, the question of concealment of
any fact by him does not arise.

6. Para 4 of G-28, which relates to
information regarding some criminal case
reads as under:

^^4& D;k vkosnd dHkh fdlh vkcdkjh vQhe
;k pjl MaDl dkuwu ds vUrxZr ;k fdlh xSj
tekurh nLrkUnkth tqeZ esa ;k 1889 ds epZUMkbt
,DV ;k nQk 382] 489 Hkk0 n0 la0 esa n.Muh;
fdlh tqeZ esa ltk ik pqdk gSA^^

English translation by the Court:

4- Whether applicant has ever been
convicted under any Excise Act or under
Anti-drugs Act involving opium or Charas or
for any non-bailable cognizable offence or
under the Merchandise Act, 1989 or for any
offence punishable u/s 382, 489 of I.P.C."

7. There is no requirement in the
aforesaid Format that an applicant for the
aforesaid licence must disclose about a
criminal case pending against him under any
provision of I.P.C. other than what is
mentioned in para 4. Admittedly, petitioner
has not been convicted under any statute. The
respondents themselves admits that merely a
case is pending against petitioner under
Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. but that
cannot be a ground to cancel licence since it
cannot be said that petitioner has concealed
some information, which he was supposed to
disclose, but has not disclosed. Learned
Standing Counsel, having gone through the
aforesaid condition, could not seriously
dispute that whatever information is required
therein,
does
not
include
information
regarding pendency of criminal case.

8. Once the respondents themselves
do not require any information regarding
pendency of criminal case, petitioner cannot
be saddled with the responsibility that he
must disclose it and failing to do so would
justify an inference of concealment of a
relevant information that a criminal case is
pending against him.

9. Even otherwise, mere pendency
of criminal case has no connection with
the terms and conditions, which has to be
stated/disclosed by applicant in the
affidavit.
Therefore,
in
my
view,
respondents have acted wholly illegally
and the impugned orders cannot sustain.

10. In the result, writ petition is
allowed.
Impugned
orders
dated
21.9.2011 and 6.1.2012 are hereby
quashed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2013

Santosh Kumar Shukla (In Jail)...
 Appellant/Accused
Versus
State of U.P.... Respondent/Prosecution

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.Y. Ansari, A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section 374(2)- Criminal Appealagainst conviction under section 326
I.P.C.-appeal on ground-if prosecution
case admitted as it is-no offence under
section 326 IPC made out-as non of the
contingencies specified in Section 320
made out-at most can be offence under
section 324 IPC punishable with 3 years.
R.I held-weapon used for assult an