# Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr v. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority Preet Vihar

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-29
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/commissioner-of-income-tax-ghaziabad-anr-v-hapur-pilkhuwa-development-authority-44358
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 584
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

Income Tax Appeal No.- 657 Of 2007
&
Connected With Other Cases

Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority Preet Vihar ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Manish Goyal

Counsel for Respondent:
Ashish Bansal

Legislation referred to : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Ss. 2(15), 2(24), 10(20A), 10(29), 11, 12, 12A, 12AA,
12AA(3), 60-63; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rr. 17A, 17A(a); Finance Act, 2002; Finance Act, 2008; U.P.
Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973; Indian Trusts Act, 1882; Societies Registration Act, 1860; U.P.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964; CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008; CBDT Instruction No.
1024 dated 09.11.1976.

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW :
Whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in
law in holding that Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (HPDA), a local authority constituted under the
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was eligible for grant of registration under Section 12AA of
the Income Tax Act, 1961?

APPEALS - DETAILS :

S.No.
IT
Appeal
No.
Assessment Year
Judgment and Order Dated / ITA No.
1
657/2007
2003-04
15.05.2007 passed in ITA No. 2735/Del/2006
2
717/2007
2003-04
31.01.2007 passed in ITA No. 2903/Del/2006
3
533/2011
2003-04
25.07.2005 passed in ITA No. 690/Luc/2003
4
320/2007
1992-93
10.11.2006 passed in ITA No. 390 (Alld.)/2006
5
96/2009
2004-05,
200530.05.2008 passed in ITA Nos. 4815 & 4816/Del/2007; and
8 All. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs Hapur Pilkhuwa Development
 Authority Preet Vihar
585
06, 2003-04
30.05.2008 passed in ITA No. 168 (Ag.)/2007
6
274/2009
2003-04
05.12.2008 passed in ITA No. 459/Agr/2007
7
263/2008
2003-04
07.08.2007 passed in ITA No. 107/Alld/2007
8
349/2008
-
14.03.2008 passed in ITA No. 32/Luc/2008

FACTS :
The respondent, Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (HPDA), is a statutory body constituted under the
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Prior to 01.04.2003, HPDA was exempt from income tax
under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon omission of Section 10(20A) by the Finance Act,
2002 with effect from 01.04.2003, HPDA applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961 by
submitting Form 10A under Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on 27.12.2005.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (CIT), vide order dated 21.06.2006, rejected the application on
two grounds: (i) that HPDA was not registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 or the Societies Registration
Act, 1860; and (ii) that its activities were not charitable per se as it sold land at commercial rates and did not
follow commercial accounting principles. HPDA preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi, which was allowed by the Tribunal following its earlier decision in respect of Ghaziabad
Development Authority (also constituted under the U.P. Act, 1973). The present batch of eight Income Tax
Appeals was preferred by the Revenue before this Court against the orders of the Tribunal.
The leading appeal is IT Appeal No. 657 of 2007 relating to Assessment Year 2003-04. All appeals raise
identical questions of law and were heard together and decided by a common judgment.

HELD :
(i) Registration under S. 12AA - Condition of registration under Trusts Act or Societies Act not
required - Section 12A or Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not stipulate as a pre-condition
that an institution seeking registration must be registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 or the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The Commissioner of Income Tax erred in importing a condition not found in the
statute. The sole requirement for registration under Section 12AA is that the institution must be created
wholly for charitable or religious purposes, and the CIT is required to satisfy himself about the genuineness of
the activities and the objects of the trust or institution.
(ii) Statutory development authority as 'Institution' for charitable purpose - S. 2(15) I.T. Act -
HPDA, being a statutory body constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 with the
object of planning, development and improvement of the area under its jurisdiction and providing shelter to
the homeless, falls within the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, specifically under the category of 'advancement of any other object of general public utility.' The
acquisition of land by HPDA is for a public purpose and not a private or personal one. There is no legal
requirement that such a statutory authority must be a trust or society to qualify as an 'Institution' under
Section 12A.
(iii) Selling land at profit - Not ipso facto disqualifying under proviso to S. 2(15) - Mere sale of
land at a profit does not by itself attract the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act so as to deprive
an institution of the benefit of registration under Section 12AA. For the proviso to apply, the activities of the
institution must be conducted on commercial lines with an intention to earn profit. Where the institution
carries out its activities in furtherance of its charitable objects without a profit motive and any profit is merely
incidental, the proviso has no application. It is the intention of the governing body and the manner in which
activities are conducted that are determinative. The Revenue had not placed any material on record to
demonstrate that HPDA was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with a motive to earn profit or had
deviated from its stated objects. [Relied upon: CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR (All)
183; CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008]
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) Registration under S. 12AA - Not conclusive; Revenue always at liberty to examine claims
under Ss. 11 & 13 - Grant of registration under Section 12AA does not confer an absolute or conclusive
right to exemption under Section 11. Registration only evidences the genuineness of activities and objects of
the institution. Revenue authorities retain full liberty at the stage of processing returns of income to examine
the claims of the assessee under Sections 11 and 13 and to give appropriate treatment to the income of the
institution consistent with the facts of each case. Registration can also be cancelled under Section 12AA(3).
The benefit under Section 11 is further subject to the control of Sections 60 to 63. Thus, registration and
exemption operate at two distinct levels and the grant of registration does not preclude future scrutiny.
[Relied upon: CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR (All) 183]
(v) Precedents affirming registration of statutory bodies - Binding on the Court - This Court in
CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR (All) 183 had held that a statutory authority
constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is entitled to registration under Section
12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since its objects are charitable in nature. Similarly, the Supreme Court in
CIT-II v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (2012) 12 SCC 267 had affirmed the charitable status of a statutory
body for the purpose of registration under Section 12AA. This Court had also held in CIT v. M/s. U.P. Forest
Corporation Ltd. (ITA No. 70 of 2009) that a statutory entity is entitled to registration under Section 12A, and
that view was upheld by the Supreme Court. HPDA being a statutory authority constituted under the same
U.P. Act, 1973, the findings and ratio in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority are squarely applicable to the
present case.

RESULT :
The substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. The orders of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal granting registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Hapur Pilkhuwa
Development Authority are confirmed. All eight Income Tax Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Cases Referred:
CIT-II v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (2012) 12 SCC 267 (SC)
CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR (All) 183 (All HC)
CIT v. M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., ITA No. 70 of 2009 (All HC), upheld in SLP (Civil) No.
2590 of 2011 (SC)
 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT-II, Kanpur, ITA No. 231/2006 (All HC)
Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Ashish Bansal for
respondents.

2. These appeals raise identical questions of law and relate to different assessment years
concerning Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HPDA') passed by
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi "G", New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),
are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. The appeal number, assessment year and dates of order are tabulated as below:
8 All. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs Hapur Pilkhuwa Development
 Authority Preet Vihar
587
S.No
IT Appeal No.
Assess.year

Judgment and order dated

1

657/2007

2003-04

15.5.2007
passed
in
ITA
No.2735/Del/2006

2

717/2007

2003-04

31.1.2007
passed
in
ITA
No.2903/Del/2006

3

533/2011

2003-04

25.7.2005
passed
in
ITA
No.690/Luc/2003

4

320/2007

1992-93

10.11.2006 passed in ITA No.390
(Alld.)/2006

5

96/2009

2004-05
2005-06
2003-04

30.5.2008 passed in ITA Nos. 4815 &
4816/Del/2007; and
30.5.2008 passed in ITA No.168
(Ag.)/2007

6

274/2009

2003-04

5.12.2008
passed
in
ITA
No.459/Agr/2007

7

263/2008

2003-04

7.8.2007
passed
in
ITA
No.107/Alld/2007

8

349/2008

__

14.3.2008
passed
in
ITA
No.32/Luc/2008

4. These appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether on given facts and circumstances of case, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified
in law in holding that local authority (Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority) was eligible for
grant of registration under Section 12AA of IT Act, 1961."

5. The leading appeal is numbered as 657 of 2007. Since facts are common in all appeals,
they are taken from said appeal.

6. Parties are referred to as appellant and respondent respectively.

7. The facts in brief giving rise to present dispute, necessary for adjudication, are as under.

8. Respondents HPDA is a body constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act, 1973'). It applied for granting registration under
Section 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") by submitting an
application in Form 10A under Rule 17A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 1962") on 27.12.2005.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as "CIT") vide
order dated 21.06.2006 rejected application observing that HPDA is not an Institution
working for charitable purposes since it was not registered under Indian Trusts Act, 1882
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882") or Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "Act, 1860"). Further its activities are also not charitable, per se as it sells land
on commercial rates and to fudge profit it does not follow commercial accounting principles.
HPDA preferred appeal i.e. ITA No. 2735 (Del) of 2006 which has been allowed by Tribunal
vide orders impugned in these appeals.

10. Tribunal has followed its earlier decision dated 31.07.2007 passed in ITA No.
2903 (Del) of 2006 in respect to Ghaziabad Development Authority which is also a body
constituted under U.P. Act, 1973 and held that it was also entitled for registration under
Section 12A. Tribunal has also referred to an earlier judgment dated 25.07.2005 in ITA No.
690 (Luc) of 2003 wherein registration for similar body was directed to be allowed. This
appeal is also before us.

11. It is not in dispute that HPDA is an authority constituted in India by or under any
law enacted either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing
accommodation or for the purpose of planning development or improvement of cities, towns
and villages or for both and was exempted from Tax under Section 10(20A) of Act, 1961.
The said Section 10(20A) has been omitted by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from
01.04.2003. However, that fact is not relevant to answer the question of registration under
Section 12A.

12. Registration Under Section 12A is permissible to a Trust or a Institution so as to
exclude provisions of Section 11 and 12 of Act, 1961. Section 11 and 12 talks of a Trust or
Institution created wholly for charitable or religious purpose. We have to examine whether
HPDA can be said to be an "Institution" created wholly for charitable purpose.

13. The term "charitable purpose" is defined in Section 2(15) of Act, 1961 and before
Finance Act, 2008 whereby it was substituted with effect from 01.04.2009 and has been
made much detailed, it read as under:

"(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical
relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility;"

(emphasis added)

14. Now it has been substituted with effect from 01.04.2009 and reads as under:

"(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical
relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and
8 All. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs Hapur Pilkhuwa Development
 Authority Preet Vihar
589
preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historical interest and the
advancement of any other object of general public utility:

Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility
shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature
of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any
trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the
nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity;

Provided further that first proviso shall not apply if the aggregate value of the
receipts from the activities referred to therein is twenty five lakh rupees or less in the
previous year."

(emphasis added)

15. "Advancement of any other object of general public utility" is a term of very wide
connotation. There is no requirement for the purpose of Section 12 that Institution must be
registered under Act, 1882 or Act, 1860. CIT added this condition on his own though we do
not find any such condition provided under Section 12A or 12AA of Act, 1961. In order to
consider whether creation of HPDA is for advancement of general public utility. Tribunal has
looked into objects and purposes of U.P. Act, 1973 and also the purpose of acquisition of
land by HPDA, which is only for public purpose and not personal one.

16. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that Tribunal has ignored the fact
that authority was engaged in activities other than those mentioned in its main object. It is
further submitted that Tribunal has erred in coming to conclusion that authority carries on
charitable work. It is submitted that Tribunal erred in considering definition of "charitable
purpose" as defined under Section 2 (15) and definition of 'income' as given under Section 2
(24) read with Rule 17-A (a) and 1962 CBDT instruction No.1024 dated 9.11.1976. Learned
Counsel has relied on judgment of this Court in ITA No.231/2006, U.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur, decided on
5.7.20016.

17. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that Tribunal has
committed no error as it is duty of authority to formulate scheme in an area which is not
developed and, therefore, application for such registration was sought for. He has relied on
the decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, (2012) 12 SCC 267, and on judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucknow
Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR 183, and contended that respondent had fulfilled the
criterion for registration under Section 12-A of the Act.

18. We find it unnecessary to go for much research work and debate issue further for
the reason that in respect to a similar authority, namely, "Lucknow Development Authority",
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

which is also constituted under U.P. Act, 1973, a similar question, whether activities of
Development Authority can be said to be 'charitable' as defined under Section 2(15) came up
for consideration before a Division Bench in CIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority 2014
(98) DTR (All) 183 and Court held as under:

"21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
material available on record.

It is undisputed fact that the assessee is a "statutory authority" which was
established under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973.
In the instant case, prior to 1st April, 2003, the assessee was enjoying exemption under
Section 10(20A) and Section 10(29). When these provisions were amended w.e.f. 1st April,
2003, then the necessity arose to register these institutions under Section 12A. In view of the
objects, there is no good reason for holding that statutory bodies could not be treated as
"charitable" within the meaning of Section 2(15). The object of the "Authority" is to provide
shelter to the homeless people, therefore, there is no objectionable material to treat these
institutions as non-charitable. The registration under Section 12A is mandatory to claim
exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It
is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of income of these assessees,
to examine the claim of the assessees under Sections 11 & 13 and give such treatment to
these institutions as is warranted by the facts of the case. Revenue Authorities are always at
liberty to cancel the registration under Section 12AA(3). Moreover, it may be mentioned that
the benefit of Section 11 is not absolutse or conclusive. It is subject to control of Sections 60
to 63. If it is found by keeping in view the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so
includible then such income does not qualify for any relief."

"25. Further, it may be mentioned that Section 12AA of the Act lays down the
procedure for registration in relation to the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12
as provided in Section 12A. Therefore, once the procedure is complete as provided in subsection (1) of Section 12AA and a certificate is issued granting registration to the trust or
institution the certificate is a document evidencing satisfaction about (i) the genuineness of
the activities of the trust or institution, and (ii) about the objects of the trust or institution.
Section 12A stipulates that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 shall not apply in relation to
income of a trust or an institution unless the conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled. Thus,
granting of registration under Section 12AA denotes that the conditions laid down in Section
12A stand fulfilled.

26. The effect of such a certificate of registration under Section 12AAA,
therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand
that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 &
12. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979) 117
ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as to whether the contribution
8 All. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs Hapur Pilkhuwa Development
 Authority Preet Vihar
591
made by the employer should be treated as a business expenditure, the requirement being
contribution should be made to a recognized provident fund.

27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. U.P.
Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2009 observed that the Forest
Corporation being an statutory entity is entitled for the registration under Section 12A of the
Act. The said observations was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 12th
May, 2011 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2590 of 2011.

28. We may also like to refer a C.B.D.T. Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th
December, 2008 [(2009) 221 CTR (St) 1 : (2009) 17 DTR (St) 1] wherein the applicability of
the commercial activities in respect of charitable purpose has been clarified. The said
circular is reproduced as below:

"2.2. 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare of
the economically and socially disadvantaged or needy. It will, therefore, include within its
ambit purposes such as relief to destitute, orphans or the handicapped, disadvantaged
women or children, small and marginal farmers, indigent artisans or senior citizens in need
of aid. Entities who have these objects will continue to be eligible for exemption even if they
incidentally carry on a commercial activity, subject, however, to the conditions stipulated
under Section 11(4A) or the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C), which are that-

(i) the business should be incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the
entity, and

(ii) separate books of accounts should be maintained in respect of such
business."

29. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities of the trust
should be carried out on commercial lines with intention to make profit. Where the trust is
carrying out its activities on non-commercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for
fulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the process earn
some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15). The aims and objects of
the assessee-trust are admittedly charitable in nature.

30. Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by
applying proviso to Section 2(15) and deny exemption available under Section 11. The
intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust
institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability of proviso
to Section 2(15).

31. There is no material/evidence brought on record by the revenue which may
suggest that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with motive to earn
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

profit or has deviated from its objects as detailed in the trust deed of the assessee. In these
facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case, and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under
Section 11 for the relevant assessment year.

32. From the record, it also appears that the "authority" had been maintaining
infrastructure, development and reserve fund IDRF as per the notification dated 15th
January, 1998, the money transferred to this funds is to be utilized for the purpose of project
as specified by the committed having constituted by the State Government under the said
notification and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the "authority" or the
receipt of taxable nature in its hands. For this reason also, it appears that the funds are
utilized for general utility."

19. The findings and observations in the aforesaid judgment are squarely applicable
in the case in hand also.

20. We also find that another statutory body, namely, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
constituted under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act, 1964") was also registered under Section 12AA of Act, 1961 and the question whether
amount transferred to Mandi Parishad would constitute application of income for 'charitable
purpose' under Section 11(1)(a) of Act, 1961 has been decided against Revenue by Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti 2012 (12) SCC
267 wherein Court has also confirmed this Court's judgment dated 04.12.2009 passed by this
Court at Lucknow in I.T.A. No. 102 of 2009.

21. In view of above, we answer above question against Revenue and confirm
judgment of Tribunal impugned in all these appeals.

22. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
8 All. Bennet Castelino Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
593
(2016) 8 ILRA 593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 9910 Of 2016

Bennet Castelino ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Bennet Castelino(In Person)

Counsel for Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Gyan Prakash, Rishad Murtaza

Legislation referred to : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 161; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 364;
Constitution of India - Art. 226.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS :
Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the mysterious disappearance of
Dr. Rahul K. Sachan, a key prosecution witness in the criminal cases pending against Asumal Harpalani alias
Asaram Bapu and his son Narayan Sai in the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat, who went missing on
25.11.2015 while under State police protection.

FACTS :
Dr. Rahul K. Sachan (son of Ram Kumar Sachan of Kanpur) was a key prosecution witness in criminal cases
pending against Asumal Harpalani alias Asaram Bapu and his son Narayan Sai at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) and at
Surat and Ahmedabad (Gujarat). He had described himself as the Personal Assistant of Asaram Bapu from
2009 to 2013 with personal knowledge of the accused's activities. Apprehending threat to his life, he had filed
an affidavit in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2015 before the Supreme Court of India seeking protection.
The Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.09.2015, directed the Trial Court to provide adequate protection to
witnesses apprehending genuine threats. Pursuant thereto, Dr. Sachan was granted State protection in the
form of a police Gunner.
Constable Vijay Bahadur, the regular Gunner assigned to Dr. Sachan, proceeded on leave for one week w.e.f.
21.11.2015, during which Constable Amit Kumar Singh from the Reserve Police Lines was deputed in his
place. On 25.11.2015, Constable Amit Kumar Singh, at the request of Dr. Sachan, took him on a motorcycle
from his residence at Mari Mata Mandir, Campbell Road, Balaganj, Lucknow to the Kaiserbagh Bus Station,
Lucknow at 9.00 a.m. and left him there. Dr. Sachan stated he would return the next day and would
telephone. No such call was received and his mobile phone was found switched off thereafter. Despite this,
the FIR was lodged only on 20.12.2015 - approximately one month after the disappearance - as Case Crime
No. 1071 of 2015 under Section 364 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.