# Harcharan Singh & Ors v. Tajendra Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 343
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-07
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 1147 of 1998
- **Bench:** Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harcharan-singh-ors-v-tajendra-singh-ors-45066
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section
100 - challenge to - decree for setting
aside the auction of plot-no notice served
upon the plaintiffs-no procedures were
followed-auctioned the land at different
place- auction was taken place by the
Deputy collector without confirmation of
Collector on meagre amount -without
opportunity of bid to persons from
general
public-illegal
and
fraudulent
auction proceedings were conducted in
contravention of section 285 - J of Z.A.
Rules. (Para 3 to 22)

plaintiffs and defendant no.5 borrowed
from state bank for purchasing a tractor,
upon default in payment of loan, the land
was
auctioned
without
notice
to
plaintiffs,
without
following
the
procedure, fraudulently at a place distant
from the land in suit auctioned.

Second Appeal dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Smt. Tasneem & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
343

2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in
the interior at a

distances from the Road.

3. frontage on a road.

3.
narrow strip of land with very small

frontage
compared to death.

4. nearness to developed area.

4. lower level requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up.

5. regular shape

 5.
remoteness from developed locality

6.
level
vis-a-vis
land
under
acquisition
6.
some
special
disadvantageous factor
which
would
deter a purchaser

7. special value for an owner of an

adjoining property to whom it may

have some very special advantage.

(15) The evaluation of these
factors of course depends on the facts of
each case. There cannot be any hard and
fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the
best and most reliable guide. For instance,
take the factor regarding the size. A
building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq.
yds cannot be compared with a large tract
or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or
more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within
the reach of many, a large block of land
will have to be developed by preparing a
lay out, carving out roads, leaving open
space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting
for purchasers (meanwhile the invested
money will be blocked up) and the hazards
of an entrepreneur. The factor can be
discounted by making a deduction by way
of an allowance at an appropriate rate
ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to
account for land required to be set apart
for carving out lands and plotting out
small plots. The discounting will to some
extent also depend on whether it is a rural
area or urban area, whether building
activity is picking up, and whether waiting
period during which the capital of the
entrepreneur would be looked up, will be
longer or shorter and the attendant
hazards.

(16) Every case must be dealt
with on its own facts pattern bearing in
mind all these factors as a prudent
purchaser of land in which position the
Judge must place himself.

(17) These are general guidelines
to be applied with understanding informed
with common sense."

25. Under such circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to go into the
determination of market value in this
appeal and is of the opinion that it would
be appropriate to remand back the matter
to the reference court for decision afresh.

26. As held in paragraph 9 of Vinod
Bansal (supra) the parties shall not be
permitted either to produce any additional
evidence or lead any further evidence
except rebuttal evidence in regard to
certified copies of the sale deeds already
produced to the extent indicated in the
Constitution Bench judgment in Cement
Corporation of India Limited (supra).

27. The impugned judgment dated
19.2.2001 passed by the reference court is
hereby set aside. Matter is accordingly
remanded back to the reference court for
decision afresh on its own merits as per the
law discussed above.

28. In view of the above both the
appeals stand allowed.
----------
(2020)1ILR343

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2019
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 1147 of 1998

Harcharan Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Tajendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.N. Saxena, Sri Deo Raj, Sri Amit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Singh, Sri R.K. Shukla, Sri Anurag
Khanna, Sri Manoj Misra, Sri Shishir
Kumar, Sri Shishir Tiwari, Sri Som Veer

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section
100 - challenge to - decree for setting
aside the auction of plot-no notice served
upon the plaintiffs-no procedures were
followed-auctioned the land at different
place- auction was taken place by the
Deputy collector without confirmation of
Collector on meagre amount -without
opportunity of bid to persons from
general
public-illegal
and
fraudulent
auction proceedings were conducted in
contravention of section 285 - J of Z.A.
Rules. (Para 3 to 22)

plaintiffs and defendant no.5 borrowed
from state bank for purchasing a tractor,
upon default in payment of loan, the land
was
auctioned
without
notice
to
plaintiffs,
without
following
the
procedure, fraudulently at a place distant
from the land in suit auctioned.

Second Appeal dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. Jagat Pal Singh Vs. St. of U.P. 1994 revenue
decisions page 429

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed
against the judgment and decree passed by
IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bijnor on
28.07.1998 in Civil Appeal No.112 of
1998 (Tajendra Singh and another Vs.
Harcharan and Another) setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial
court on 16.03.1988 in Civil Suit No.257
of 1989 and decreeing the suit of plaintiffs.

2. The brief facts relating to the case are
that defendant/respondent nos.1 and 2 filed
Civil Suit No.257 of 1989 in the court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor against
defendant No.4 for obtaining (i) a decree for
setting aside the auction of Plot No.80 area 13
Bigha 5 Biswas situated in village Turatpur
Pargana Afzalgarh, Tehsil Nagina, District
Bijnor and (ii) a decree for permanent
injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 4,
their servants and agents from interfering in
peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the land
in dispute.

3. As per averments made in plaint, the
plaintiffs and defendant No.5 borrowed a
sum of Rs.48,000/- from State of Bank of
India in the year 1979 for purchase of a
tractor and upon default in payment of loan,
the land in suit was auctioned without notice
to plaintiffs, without following procedure
laid down by law, and by conducting auction
proceedings
in
surreptitiously
and
fraudulently at a place, distant from land in
suit auctioned and different to the place
mentioned in sale proclamation; that the
alleged sale could have been confirmed only
by the Collector, who has not passed any
order of confirmation and since, the
proceedings were conducted surreptitiously
in
fraudulent
manner,
the
auction
proceedings are liable to be set aside; that
defendant no.5 is in collusion with defendant
nos.1 to 4.

4. The defendant nos. 1 to 4 filed
written statement denying the allegations
1 All. Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Tajendra Singh & Ors.
345
of plaint and contending that the suit is
liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. On parties pleadings trial court
framed as many as 12 issues and in view
of its findings on various issues, dismissed
the suit of plaintiffs with costs vide
judgement and decree dated 16.03.1988.

6. Against the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court plaintiffs filed
Civil Appeal No.112 of 1998 before the
District
Judge,
Bijnor,
which
was
transferred to the court of IIIrd Additional
District Judge Bijnor and was allowed by
it vide impugned judgement and decree
dated
28.07.1998
setting
aside
the
judgement and decree dated 16.03.1988
passed by trial court and decreeing suit of
plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved defendant
nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal.

7. The instant appeal was admitted
vide order dated 20.08.1998 on following
3 substantial questions of law, mentioned
at page 7 of the memo of appeal, which are
as under:-

"1. Whether the suit of the
plaintiffs was barred by section 11 C.P.C.
and the lower appellate court was justified
to reverse the decree of trial court without
considering the arguments raised on
behalf of the appellant on this point?

2. Whether the suit of the
plaintiffs respondent was barred by time
and the lower appellate court was justified
to reverse the decree of lower appellate
court without considering this aspect of
the matter?

3. Whether the lower appellate
court was justified to reverse the decree,
though fraud neither pleaded nor proved
by the plaintiff?"

8. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit,
learned
counsel
for
the
defendants/appellants (hereinafter referred
as defendants), Sri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Som Veer,
learned
counsel
for
the
plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter referred
as plaintiffs) and perused the record as
well as the lower court record summoned
in appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the defendants
contended that lower appellate court acted
wrongly and illegally in setting aside
judgement and decree of dismissal of suit
passed by the trial court by allowing the
appeal and decreeing the plaintiffs' suit
and setting aside auction proceedings; that
plaintiffs had raised objections before the
S.D.O., which were rejected and appeal
before
the
Commissioner
was
also
dismissed; that the writ filed against the
order of Commissioner was dismissed
with liberty to file civil suit; that lower
appellate court acted wrongly in holding
that procedure prescribed by law was not
followed
by
revenue
authorities,
in
conducting the auction proceedings; that
lower appellate court failed to consider
that procedure of law laid down for
''recovery of arrears of land revenue'' is
different from procedure for ''recovery of
money as arrears of land revenue''; that the
procedure prescribed under Sections 279
to 286 (1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred as Z.A. Act) is applicable to cases
of recovery of arrears of land revenue, but
same procedure is not applicable in
matters of recovery of unpaid amount of
loan etc., recoverable as arrears of land
revenue, for which procedure mentioned
only under Sections 286 (2) of Z.A. Act is
applicable; that for recovery of money as
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrears of land revenue no notice is
required to be served upon plaintiffsrespondents, who were borrowers and
defaulters of Bank loan as Section 286(2)
does not contemplate service of any such
notice; that plaintiffs and defendant No.5
were joint borrowers and defendant No.5
was duly served with notice of recovery
under Section 279 of Z.A. Act of which,
his brothers, the plaintiffs had full
knowledge; that the plaintiffs have neither
pleaded nor proved fraud if any played on
them in conducting of the auction
proceedings;
that
the
objections
of
plaintiffs
with
regard
to
alleged
irregularities or mistakes in conducting the
auction proceedings having been rejected
by revenue courts, could not have been
considered in civil suit, being barred by
provisions of Rule 285 K of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as Z.A.
Rules); that the suit was barred by time as
well as by provisions of Section 11 of
Civil Procedure Code and learned lower
appellate court acted wrongly and illegally
in not holding that the suit was barred by
above provisions; that lower appellate
court was not justified in reversing the
decree passed by trial court, in absence of
pleadings or proof of fraud; that the
impugned judgment and decree are liable
to be set aside, judgement and decree
passed by trial court is liable to be restored
and suit of plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for
the plaintiffs supported the impugned
judgement and decree and contended that
the judgement and decree passed by lower
appellate court are based on correct
interpretation of provisions of law; that
lower appellate court has rightly held that
in
conducting
impugned
auction,
procedure prescribed by law was not
followed; that it was not only proved from
the evidence on record, but was also
admitted to defendants-appellants auction
purchasers that the auction of land in
dispute did not take place at village
Turatpur over land in suit, the place
mentioned in alleged proclamation, rather
was conducted at village Qadarbad, a
distant place, which is against the spirit
and procedure prescribed under law; that
Rule 285A of Z.A. Rules provides that
every sale under Sections 284 and 286
shall be made either by Collector in person
or by an assistant Collector specially
appointed by him in his behalf but Rule
285-J provides that order confirming the
sale shall be passed by Collector only; that
it is clear from above provisions that
Assistant Collector was not empowered
under law, to confirm the auction sale; that
undisputably, in instant case, Collector has
not passed any order confirming the
auction sale and the order of confirmation
of sale passed by Assistant Collector is
wrong illegal and without authority which
is no order in the eye of law and so the
alleged auction sale may not be considered
to have been confirmed in accordance with
law and the proceedings of alleged
delivery of possession over the disputed
property are fake and fictitious having no
legal value; that arguments advanced on
behalf of appellant, that procedure for
recovery of money as arrears of land
revenue is confined only to provisions of
Section 286 (2) of Z.A. Act read with Rule
282 of Z.A. Rules and that provisions
prescribed under Sections 279 to 286 (1)
of Z.A. Act applicable only to cases of
"recovery of arrears of land revenue", but
not in matters of "recovery of money as
arrears
of
land
revenue"
is highly
misconceived and mistaken; that the trial
court was misguided by defendants; that
1 All. Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Tajendra Singh & Ors.
347
the appeal has been filed with absolutely
false and baseless allegations wherein no
substantial question of law arises and is
liable to be dismissed with costs.

11. Upon hearing learned counsel for
the parties and perusal of record as well as
the lower court record, which has been
summoned in the appeal, I find that the
submissions made on behalf of appellant
that the procedure for ''recovery of arrears
of land revenue'' is totally different from
procedure "for recovery of money as
arrears of land revenue" is entirely
different has no force. It is noteworthy that
legislation has laid down a procedure "for
recovery of arrears of land revenue" and
same procedure has been made applicable
in matters "for recovery of certain types of
money/dues which may also be recovered
as arrears of land revenue." Hence the
procedure for recovery of latter amount
may not be different from the procedure
which is prescribed for recovery of former,
i.e. arrears of land revenue. Undisputably
the provisions of Section 279(1) clause (a)
to (e) relate only to the cases of recovery
of arrears of land revenue and have no
application in the matters of recovery of
any other amount/ money as arrears of
land revenue but for this reason it will not
be correct to say that in matters of
recovery of money as arrears of land
revenue, the proceedings of auction sale
may be conducted without notice to
defaulters
and
without
giving
them
opportunity to make payment of dues at
any time before the date fixed for sale so
as to avoid auction as provided under Rule
285-C of Z.A. Rules.

12. The lower appellate court in its
elaborate findings has held that admittedly
the
auction
proceedings
were
not
conducted at village Turatpur over the land
in dispute rather were conducted at a
distant place in village Qadarbad which is
at a distance of 3 Kms from land in suit as
per plaintiffs and about 11⁄2 kms away as
per contention of defendants. It is admitted
to defendants that notice contemplated
under Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act was
served on defendant No.5 who is brother
of plaintiffs which indicates that service of
notice of auction was mandatory on
plaintiffs also, but no such notice was ever
served on them.

13. The contention that since
defendant No.5 (one out of 3 borrowers/
defaulters) was brother of other 2 so
service of notice on plaintiffs could have
been waived has no force. The Court is of
considered view that service of notice of
auction was mandatory on plaintiffs also in
view of principles of natural justice and
they could not have been deprived with the
opportunity to make payment of dues by
date fixed as well as from their rights over
the land in suit without due service of
notice.

14. In the case of Jagat Pal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Revenue decisions
page 429, this Court while considering the
power to be exercised by Collector in
confirming the sale under Rule 285-J of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules 1952 held that-

"Now we take up the first point
as to whether the Sub- Divisional Officer
had power to confirm the sale or not. It
has been seen in the earlier part of this
judgment that under Rule 285-J of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules the Collector has to
confirm the sale after expiry of the period
of 30 days if the sale does not contravene
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the provisions of Section 154 of the
U.P.Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act. The power to confirm the
sale vests with the Collector and not with
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer.
Learned
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the Board of Revenue has delegated the
power to the Assistant Collector/SubDivisional
Officer
on
17-1-1976
to
perform the functions of the Collector
which are performed by the Collector vide
Revenue Board Notification No. 1/1-76(3)-
6 dated 17-1-1976, a copy of which is
Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit.
A perusal of this notification goes to show
that the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant
Collector has only been authorised by this
notification
to
conduct
the
auction
proceedings under Section 286 of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act subject to the condition that the
confirmation of sale shall be done by the
Collector. The power of the Collector,
when he acts under Section 284 of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act has not been conferred upon the Asstt.
Collector/ Sub-Divisional Officer by this
notification. As seen in the earlier part of
this judgment the sale in the present case
has taken place under the provisions of
Section 284 of the Act and not under
Section 286. Therefore this notification
dated 17-1-1976 will not apply to the facts
of the present case. Moreover, there is
another ground on the basis of which it
cannot
be
said
that
the
Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer has been
invested with the power to confirm the
sale. The last sentence of the notification
dated 17-1-1976 clearly goes to show that
the power of conducting sale proceedings
under Section 286 of the Act has been
conferred
upon
the
Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer with the
condition that the confirmation of sale
shall be done by the Collector, it means
that only a power to auction the property
or conduct the sale has been given to the
Assistant Collector/ Sub- Divisonal Officer
and not a power to confirm the sale which
has been given to the Collector under the
provisions
of
Rule
285-1
of
the
U.P.Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Rules. Therefore this notification
does not, in any way, confer powers on the
Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisonal Officer,
holding the charge of a sub-division, to
confirm the sale. Power to confirm the sale
still vests with the Collector."

15. The lower appellate court upon
analyzation of evidence has found that
Sohan Singh who allegedly participated in
the auction proceedings and allegedly put
a bid for auction has been produced as
PW3 and has stated on oath that he neither
participated in auction nor gave any bid.
Similarly Ram Bahal and Ram Singh, who
allegedly made proclamation of impugned
auction have been produced as PW2 and
PW5 respectively and have stated on oath
before the court that they did not conduct
any proclamation proceedings. In view of
above evidence on record lower appellate
court has rightly come to the conclusion
that the proceedings of auction were
conducted surreptitiously in fraudulent
manner (i) without due notice to the
plaintiffs, (ii) at a place distant from land
in suit which was auctioned (iii) auctioned
in camera without due proclamation or bid
by general public and (iv) since the
auction sale, which could have been
confirmed only by Collector as per
provisions contained in Rule 285-J of Z.A.
Rules, has not been
confirmed by
Collector, the auction sale proceedings are
illegal and are liable to be set aside. In any
case even if the S.D.O. had been delegated
with powers of confirmation of auction
1 All. Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Tajendra Singh & Ors.
349
sale under Rule 285-J of Z.A. Rules, it will
not validate the illegal and fraudulent
auction
proceedings
conducted
in
contravention of procedure prescribed by
law.

16. The lower appellate court in its
findings
in
para
16
of
impugned
judgement has categorically narrated that a
sum of Rs.88274/- was due on plaintiffs
and Rs.226/- were collection charges total
Rs.88500/- which was minimum/ statutory
bid and the auction of huge plot of over 13
Bigha area was finalized on highest bid of
defendants for same amount, which
indicates that no actual auction did take
place and auction proceedings were
conducted in camera in surreptitious and
fraudulent manner.

17. It is pertinent to mention that
issue No.9 regarding suit being barred by
provisions of Sections 11 of Civil
Procedure Code and issue No.10 regarding
suit being barred by time, were decided by
trial court against the defendants. The
impugned auction is alleged to have taken
place on 20.05.1986 for setting aside
which auction sale, suit has been filed on
16.05.1989, with the contention that
plaintiffs got knowledge of auction sale on
03.08.1986 and is well within prescribed
period of limitation of 3 years.

18. The lower appellate court has not
carved out any new case rather plaintiffs
had taken specific plea in para 14 (g) and
(h) of plaint about fraudulent proceedings
and there is plenty of evidence in support
of above allegations which are fully
proved from the evidence on record.

19. In view of discussions made
above the Court is of the considered view
that the auction of land in suit has been
conducted (i) without serving the plaintiffs
with notices of date of auction, (ii) without
due proclamation at a place distant from
land auctioned, (iii) in camera and not by
public auction without opportunity of bid
to persons from general public, (iv) by
finishing auction of huge plot of over 13
Bighas on meager amount equivalent to
statutory bid of amount which was due and
(v) without confirmation by Collector,
surreptitiously in secret/ hidden and
fraudulent manner against the procedure
prescribed under law. U.P. Government
delegates several powers of Collector to
Deputy Collectors or Assistant Collectors,
through notifications from time to time.
All such notifications with regard to
delegation of powers of confirmation of
sale under Rule 285-J of Z.A. Rules were
not brought before the Court. Even
assuming delegation of such powers to
S.D.O./ Deputy Collector under Rule 285J of Z.A. Rules and presuming him to be
competent to confirm auction sale, the
impugned
auction
sale
which
was
conducted surreptitiously in secret/ hidden
and fraudulent manner at a place different
from the land auctioned, without notices to
plaintiffs/
defaulter,
even
upon
confirmation may not be legalized or
regularized.

20. In view of discussions made
above, the Court is of considered view that
the learned counsel for appellants has
failed to show any illegality, incorrectness
or perversity in findings recorded by lower
appellate court. All the 3 substantial
questions of law framed in this appeal on
20.08.1998 have no force and are decided
against the defendants-appellants in favour
of plaintiffs- respondents. The learned
counsel for appellants has failed to show
any sufficient ground for setting aside
impugned judgement and decree or for
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interfering with the findings recorded
therein.

21. The appeal is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed with costs
throughout.

22. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed with costs throughout. The
impugned judgement and decree are
affirmed.

23. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

24. Let the lower court record be sent
back to court below alongwith the copy of
the judgement, after preparation of decree
----------
(2020)1ILR350

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Government Appeal No. 617 of 1994

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Indu Uniyal & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Pankaj Srivastava

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 378(3) & Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 452, 307, 307 r/w 34 -
appeal preferred by the state against
order of acquittal- material contradictionspecific identification of weapon did not
come out-finding of acquittal in favour of
the respondents is affirmed or view taken
by the trial court is justified-grant of
leave to appeal is refused. (Para 21, 22 &
23)

The injured was a literate man and was head
of an educational institution and he, as per his
cross- examination, is very much acquainted
with the nature and identity of 'gun' and
'revolver' and he categorically stated in his
testimony that he can identify these weapons,
therefore it means that the weapon used can
be specifically identified by him. However, that
specific identification has not come out
establishing its nature and specification. The
graver aspect of the case is that there is
material contradiction on the point as to who
opened the fire and, on this point, admittedly
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is
vacillating and is not certain. (Para 20)

Government Appeal dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J. & Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

(1) Report of the C.J.M.- Saharanpur dated
07.10.2013 reflects that accused- respondent
no.1- George Rajesh- died on 15.03.2018.

(2) In view of the report of C.J.M.-
Saharanpur dated 07.10.2013, this appeal
stands abated against accused- respondent
no.1- George Rajesh and is dismissed.

(3) Now, this appeal relates to the
surviving respondent no.1- Indu Unival-
for adjudication.

(4) Heard learned A.G.As for the
State- appellant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondents,
perused the impugned judgement of
acquittal and record of the appeal.

(5) The instant Government Appeal
has been preferred by the State of U.P.