# Devmani Pandey v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-12-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 22257 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devmani-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-41300
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure:1973-Section
216-Alteration Of Charges-Trail Court by
impugned Order although allowed the
application for correction of time of
occurrence and nature of inquiry but
refused to alter charge for offence under
Section 326 IPC-It can be properly
decided by Trail Court after having
evidence-at this stage interference by
High Court not proper.

Held: Para 6

Considering the submission made by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
1 All] Devmani Pandey V. State of U.P.
141
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned A.G.A. For State of U.P., learned
counsel appearing on behalf of accused
persons and from the perusal of the
record it appears that in the present case
the trial court has not framed the charge
under section 326 IPC, at this stage, it is
not proper to enter in to the controversy
regarding framing of the charge either
under section 324 IPC or 326 because it
may prejudice the mind of trial court
Judge, This issue may be properly
decided by the trial court when such
evidence is adduced because any court
may alter or add to any charge at
anytime
before
the
judgement
is
pronounced as provided by section 216
of Cr.P.C. 1973. The trail court is a
competent
court
to
appreciate
the
evidence adduced in the court, at this
stage no evidence is adduced, the
material collected by the I.O. during
investigation is available on the record.
Therefore, it is not proper to this court to
interfere
with
the
order
dated
05.08.2008 by expressing any opinion
regarding framing of the charge, the
prayer for quashing the impugned order
dated 05.08.2008 is refused. But it shall
be
open
to
the
applicant
or
the
prosecution to move an application
before the trial court for altering the
charge or adding some other charge at
the stage of the trial when such evidence
is adduced as provided by the provisions
of 216 Cr.P.C.

## Text

140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
given set of facts. No abstract principle of
universal application could be laid in that
behalf. The confidential report of the
officer
prior
to
initiation
of
the
prosecution do furnish the evidence of
conduct of the public servant. It is the
duty of the officer to place his material
and of the Government to lace all the
necessary record in that behalf before the
court/tribunal for consideration and it
would be for the court/tribunal to
consider and decide the matter. This
Court has pointed out in several cases the
need to record confidential reports
objectively and dispassionately with a
reformative purpose to enable the public
servant to reform himself to improve
quality of the service and efficiency of the
administration. Parochial, sectorial or
nepotic approach would be deleterious to
the efficiency of administration and
maintenance of discipline in service.
Confidential reports placed on record in
this case do disclose such deleterious
tendency in writing the confidential
reports. One set of officers reported
integrity of the appellant and while
diametrically in opposite terms the
predecessor officer had reported doubtful
integrity of the appellant. They do
demonstrate the lack of objectivity on the
part of some officers in writing the
confidential reports. This would be very
sad state of affairs impinging upon
efficiency of administration. We have
confined to the question of payment of
back wages with an intention that on
reinstatement the appellant would reform
himself purging from the proclivity of
corrupt practices and prove himself to be
a useful public servant to himself, to the
family and to the society. In the light of
the
confidential
reports
indicating
doubtful integrity, we are of the view that
it is not expedient to direct payment of
back wages, though he was acquitted by
the criminal Court may be on technical
grounds or on merits, he is not entitled to
back wages. As stated earlier the
circumstances of the case and conduct of
he appellant do furnish justification in
denying him the back wages lest it would
be
a
premium
on
proclivity
for
corruption.

8. Accordingly, there is no merit in
the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 22257 of
2008

Devmani Pandey

...Applicant

Versus
State of U.P.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri S.K.Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.D. Shukla
A.G.A

Code of Criminal Procedure:1973-Section
216-Alteration Of Charges-Trail Court by
impugned Order although allowed the
application for correction of time of
occurrence and nature of inquiry but
refused to alter charge for offence under
Section 326 IPC-It can be properly
decided by Trail Court after having
evidence-at this stage interference by
High Court not proper.

Held: Para 6

Considering the submission made by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
1 All] Devmani Pandey V. State of U.P.
141
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned A.G.A. For State of U.P., learned
counsel appearing on behalf of accused
persons and from the perusal of the
record it appears that in the present case
the trial court has not framed the charge
under section 326 IPC, at this stage, it is
not proper to enter in to the controversy
regarding framing of the charge either
under section 324 IPC or 326 because it
may prejudice the mind of trial court
Judge, This issue may be properly
decided by the trial court when such
evidence is adduced because any court
may alter or add to any charge at
anytime
before
the
judgement
is
pronounced as provided by section 216
of Cr.P.C. 1973. The trail court is a
competent
court
to
appreciate
the
evidence adduced in the court, at this
stage no evidence is adduced, the
material collected by the I.O. during
investigation is available on the record.
Therefore, it is not proper to this court to
interfere
with
the
order
dated
05.08.2008 by expressing any opinion
regarding framing of the charge, the
prayer for quashing the impugned order
dated 05.08.2008 is refused. But it shall
be
open
to
the
applicant
or
the
prosecution to move an application
before the trial court for altering the
charge or adding some other charge at
the stage of the trial when such evidence
is adduced as provided by the provisions
of 216 Cr.P.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
For the State of U.P. and Sri N.D. Shukla,
learned counsel for the complainant who
have not been impleaded as opposite
parties.

2. This application has been filed
with a prayer to set aside the order dated
05.08.2008 passed by learned Addl.
Session Judge, Court No. 3, Bhadohi in
S.T. No. 134 of 1997 and to direct the
trial court to frame the charges against the
accused persons under section 326 IPC.

3. The facts in brief of this case are
that the FIR has been lodged by the
applicant in case crime No. 225 of 1990
under section 324,325,504 IPC, P.S.
Suriyawan,
District
Varanasi
on
14.11.1990 against the accused Baduk
Nath Tiwari, Shiv Kumar Tiwari and
Saroj Tiwari with the allegation that the
accused persons caused the injuries by
using kicks, fists, lathi, Danda and Farsa
blows
consequently
the
applicant
Devmani Pandey had sustained incised
wound which was found grievous in
nature caused by sharp object. The case
was committed to the court of sessions
which is pending in the court of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Bhadohi vide S.T. No. 134 of 1997. At
the stage of the trial, an application has
been moved from the prosecution side to
correct the charge framed by the court by
correcting the time of the incident as 6.00
P.M. at the place of 8.00 P.M. and to
delete wording by which it has been
mentioned that injuries were caused by
lathi and danda and adding the words by
which injuries were caused by Farsa. But
the trial court has refused to frame the
charge under section 326 IPC. Bring
aggrieved
from
the
order
dated
05.08.2008 by which the charge has not
been framed under section 326 IPC. This
application
has
been
filed
by
the
applicant.

4. it is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that according to the
medical
examination
report
of
the
applicant he had sustained only three
injuries which were grievous in nature
which disclose the commission of the
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
offence under section 326 IPC even then
the charge has been committed a manifest
error by not framing the charge under
section 326 IPC.

5. In reply of the above contention, it
is submitted by learned A.G.A. And
learned
counsel
Sri
N.D.
Shukla
appearing on behalf of the opposite
parties that the trial court has not
committed any error by not framing the
charge under section 326 IPC because at
any stage of the trial the charge can be
altered, if such evidence is adduced.

6. Considering the submission made
by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. For State of U.P., learned counsel
appearing on behalf of accused persons
and from the perusal of the record it
appears that in the present case the trial
court has not framed the charge under
section 326 IPC, at this stage, it is not
proper to enter in to the controversy
regarding framing of the charge either
under section 324 IPC or 326 because it
may prejudice the mind of trial court
Judge, This issue may be properly
decided by the trial court when such
evidence is adduced because any court
may alter or add to any charge at anytime
before the judgement is pronounced as
provided by section 216 of Cr.P.C. 1973.
The trail court is a competent court to
appreciate the evidence adduced in the
court, at this stage no evidence is adduced
the material collected by the I.O. during
investigation is available on the record.
Therefore, it is not proper to this court to
interfere with the order dated 05.08.2008
by expressing any opinion regarding
framing of the charge, the prayer for
quashing the impugned order dated
05.08.2008 is refused. But it shall be open
to the applicant or the prosecution to
move an application before the trial court
for altering the charge or adding some
other charge at the stage of the trial when
such evidence is adduced as provided by
the provisions of 216 Cr.P.C.

With
this
observation,
this
application is finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45169 of 2008

Ritesh Tewari and another ...Petitioners

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.K. Upadhya
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Atul Mehra
Sri Sanjay Kumar Om
Smt. Archana Srivastava
Sri R.P. Dwivedi
S.C.

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,
1976-Section 5, 10 (1) and 10 (4)-Land
purchased from Registered Society who
got the land from erstwhile ownerpossessing surplus land-became finalsale of such plot already vested with
State Government illegal void-Rejection
of sanctioning the map-proper petitioner
can not be declared owner under writ
jurisdiction-no right to maintain his
possession-rejection order passed by
development Authority held/proper.

Held: Para 12 & 17