# M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 11
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 69 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rajshi-processors-raebareli-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51961
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedure-1908Order 47 Rule 1(1) - Order sought to be
reviewed takes into consideration all the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner- Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any specific material which
was placed before the Court while arguing the
writ petition and which has not been taken into
consideration by this Court while passing the
order.

While assailing the orders passed by the
Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are
expected to act with some sense of responsibility
and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while
contending that the order passed by the Court
suffers from a patent error-The allegation that
"this Court has blindly believed the stand
of the revenue that the seller/supplier firm
were non-existent and bogus firms" besides
being incorrect, is disrespectful towards the
Court- The court deprecates the disrespectful
manner of drafting of this review application.

Review petition is dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases referred:

## Text

5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
11
(2024) 5 ILRA 11
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 69 of 2024

M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedure-1908Order 47 Rule 1(1) - Order sought to be
reviewed takes into consideration all the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner- Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any specific material which
was placed before the Court while arguing the
writ petition and which has not been taken into
consideration by this Court while passing the
order.

While assailing the orders passed by the
Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are
expected to act with some sense of responsibility
and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while
contending that the order passed by the Court
suffers from a patent error-The allegation that
"this Court has blindly believed the stand
of the revenue that the seller/supplier firm
were non-existent and bogus firms" besides
being incorrect, is disrespectful towards the
Court- The court deprecates the disrespectful
manner of drafting of this review application.

Review petition is dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases referred:

1. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs VS Narayan Reddy &
ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034

2. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque
1954 SCC OnLine SC 8

3. S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs Palani Roman Catholic
Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned
counsel for the review petitioner.

2. By means of the instant review
petition, the petitioner is seeking review of a
judgment and order dated 14.05.2024
passed by this Court in Writ Tax No.128 of
2024.

3. The petitioner is engaged in
manufacture and sale of Aluminum Casting
& Machinery Parts. The petitioner had filed
GSTR 3B for the months of May, 2019,
August, 2019 and December, 2019. The
Deputy
Commissioner,
Special
Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax,
Lucknow had conducted a survey of the
place of business on 25.02.2020. The
petitioner claimed to have received inward
supplies worth Rs.16,39,200/-from M/s
Ridhi
Sidhi
Enterprises,
worth
Rs.
17,25,160/- from M/s Siddhartha Trading
Company and worth Rs. 29,78,025/- from
M/s
Satvik
Enterprises
and
claimed
Rs.2,95,056/-,
Rs.2,63,160/-
and
Rs.
4,54,275/- respectively towards I.T.C. Claim
for inward supplies received from the
aforesaid
firms.
Special
Investigation
Branch, Agra conducted a survey of the
aforesaid three firms whereupon it came to
light that all the aforesaid three firms were
non-existent and bogus firms and the
petitioner had fraudulently claimed I.T.C.
benefit of Rs.10,12,491/- without any actual
supply of goods, on the basis of the fake
invoice issued by the aforesaid three nonexistence
bogus
firms.
The
Special
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigation
Branch
found
that
the
petitioner had knowingly claimed excessive
amount towards I.T.C. in his GSTR-2A also
and had adjusted the same in the tax payable
by him. Thus, the petitioner claimed a total
of Rs. 15,93,491/- I.T.C. in violation of the
provisions of law.

4. The adjudicating authority issued a
notice under Section 74 in reply to which the
petitioner
submitted
his
explanation
alongwith the evidence, stating that it had
received inward supplies from M/s Ridhi
Sidhi Enterprises, M/s Siddhartha Trading
Company and M/s Satvik Enterprises and in
support of its claim of actual receipt of
inward
supplies,
the
petitioner
had
submitted invoices, copies of GR (goods
receipts), e-way bill, ledger and bank
statements of the firms, evidence of
transaction of amounts through RTGS and
evidence of physical receipts of goods. The
inward supplies received by the petitioner
were entered in the stock register.

5. The adjudicating authority did not
accept the explanation of the petitioner
because the Special Investigation Branch,
Agra had found the aforesaid three firms,
namely, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, M/s
Siddhartha Trading Company and M/s
Satvik Enterprises to be nonexistent and
bogus and that the tax invoices had been
issued without any actual supply of goods
upon which the petitioner had fraudulently
taken benefit of I.T.C. The adjudicating
authority declined the benefit of I.T.C. to the
petitioner and imposed penalty on the
petitioner and fixed the liability of interest
also.

6. The appellate authority found that in
his explanation submitted before the
adjudicating authority, the petitioner had
produced GR No. 213/dated 13.05.2019,
694/dated
21.08.2019,
695/dated
21.08.2019 and 1363/dated 15.12.2019
issued
by
M/s
Goyal
Goods Carry
Corporation, Daresi No. 2, Agra as evidence
for transport of goods from Agra to
Raebareli. The adjudicating authority found
that GR No. 213/dated 13.05.2019 and
1363/dated 15.12.2019 had been issued on a
similar format, whereas GR No. 694/dated
21.08.2019 and 696/dated 21.08.2019 had
been issued on a different format, whereas
all of those have been issued by the same
transport company and, which had no other
branch. The GSTIN-09AJBPG5336KIZ5
and phone number 6395078684 were
mentioned on the transport bilty. GST is
payable on transport services. When an
enquiry was conducted on the basis of
GSTIN number mentioned on the transport
bilty, the GSTIN was found to be not valid
as per the information available on the
common
portal.
The
phone
number
mentioned on the transport bilty, was found
to be in use of some lady at Kasganj. From
the aforesaid facts, it appears that the bilties
had been attached with the explanation of
the petitioner to somehow show the real
inward supply by making adjustments. The
adjudicating authority found that the alleged
supplier firms were non-existent and the
bilties had been produced merely to
establish transactions with non-existing
firms. No goods were transported from Agra
to Raebareli and the transactions were paper
transactions only.

7. While advancing submissions in
support of the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner challenging the order passed by
the assessing authority and the appellate
authority, the learned counsel for the
petitioner had submitted that the petitioner
had actually received inward supplies,
which was established from the records
produced before the adjudicating authority.
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
13
The supplier firms were having valid
GSTIN 4 registration when the petitioner
had received the supplies. Merely because
GSTIN registration of the firm was
cancelled
subsequently
at
their
own
requests, the petitioner cannot be penalized
for the same. As per Section 16 of the GST
Act, 2017, the petitioner was merely
required to be in possession of a tax invoice
or debit note issued by the supplier, receipt
of goods and actual payment of tax to the
Government. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner the requirements of Section 16 of
the GST Act, 2017 and Rule 36 of GST
Rules 2017 had been fulfilled by the
petitioner by furnishing the aforesaid
requisite documents.

8. While deciding the Writ Petition,
this Court had held that Section 16 (2) (b) of
the GST Act provides that no registered
person shall be entitled to the credit of any
input tax in respect of any supply of goods
unless he has received the goods. "Received
the goods" means the person claiming input
tax credit must have actually received the
goods. Where a person merely produces
documents mentioned in Rule 36 regarding
receipt of goods without actual receipt of
any goods and it is established that the
transaction of goods was merely paper
transactions, the person will not be entitled
to get the benefit of input tax credit in view
of the provision contained in Section
16(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017. The
petitioner had fulfilled the documentary
requirements and the input tax credit was
granted to him. Subsequently, in an enquiry
conducted by the Special Investigation
Branch, it came to light that the firms from
which the petitioner claimed to have
received inward supplies, were non-existent
and bogus. Neither the firms were found on
the addresses, claimed by them, nor could
any godown or other premises of those firms
be found and it appeared that the firms were
existing on paper only. The non-existent
firms could not have made any actual
supplies. Merely because the firm was
registered on the date of transaction, it
cannot be said that the department was
bound to give I.T.C. benefit to the petitioner,
even though it has been revealed later on the
firm was non-existent and it could not have
made any actual supplies.

9. This Court further held that the
findings of Special Investigation Branch
revealed that the petitioner had committed a
fraud against the department and the public
exchequer by claiming inward supplies from
non-existent firms to take advantage of
I.T.C. It is settled law that fraud vitiates even
the most solemn proceedings and the mere
fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier been
granted to the petitioner merely because the
firms were registered, would not create any
estoppel against the authorities taking
appropriate action for claiming refund of the
benefit wrongly availed by the petitioner on
the ground of receiving inward supplies
from non-existent firms. This Court found
that the appellate authority had passed the
impugned
order
after
taking
into
consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the material available on
record.

10. The petitioner is seeking review of
the order passed by this Court on the ground
that this Court's order suffers from errors
apparent on the face of the record as
discrepancies in the judgment are prevalent
and the judgment dated 14.05.2024 does not
deal with the material presented by the
petitioner on record. It has further been
stated in the grounds of the review petition
that "this Court has blindly believed the
stand of the revenue that the seller/supplier
firm were non-existent and bogus firms,
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is a grave mistake and an omission
committed by the respondent at the time of
hearing and while passing the order as no
survey
has
been
conducted
by
the
department on the place of business of the
supplier firms, whether it was before
cancellation or after cancellation."

11. It has also been contended in the
review petition that Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
provides for filing of an application for
review of a judgment on the basis of
discovery of important matter or evidence,
which after exercise of due diligence, was
not within the knowledge of the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed e-stamp affidavit of
the
transporter
to
prove
bona
fide
transaction and the movement of goods.

12. It would be appropriate to have a
look at the provision contained in Order
XLVII, Rule 1 (1) C.P.C. before proceeding
any further: -

Application
for
review
of
judgment.-(1) Any person considering
himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed, but from which
no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from
which no appeal is allowed, or

(c)by a decision on a reference
from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of
new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within his knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or on
account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review
of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment of
the Court which passed the decree or made
the order.
* * *

13. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.
Narayan Reddy and Others: 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1034, which was an appeal filed
against an order passed by the High Court
allowing a review application While
allowing the appeal and setting aside the
order passed by the High Court in review,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
review petition was nothing short of an
abuse of process of the Court and the same
ought to have been rejected by the High
Court as not maintainable, without having
gone into the merits of the matter.

14. The following passage from the
judgment in case of S. Madhusudhan
Reddy (Supra) discusses the law regarding
the scope of review:-

"18. A glance at the aforesaid
provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i)
discovery of new and important matters or
evidence which, after exercise of due
diligence, were not within the knowledge of
the applicant or could not be produced by
him when the decree was passed or the order
made; (ii) on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) for any other sufficient reason.

19. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v.
Union of India 1980 Supp SCC 562, this
Court observed that a review of an earlier
order cannot be done unless the court is
satisfied that the material error which is
manifest on the face of the order, would
result in miscarriage of justice or undermine
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
15
its soundness. The observations made are as
under:

"12. A review is not a routine
procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri
Kapil at length to remove any feeling that
the party has been hurt without being heard.
But we cannot review our earlier order
unless satisfied that material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh
Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court
observed:

'A review of a judgment is a
serious step and reluctant resort to it is
proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept
in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... The
present stage is not a virgin ground but
review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality.'"
(emphasis in original)

20. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error
that is not self-evident and the one that has
to be detected by the process of reasoning,
cannot be described as an error apparent on
the face of the record for the Court to
exercise the powers of review, this Court
held as under:

"7. It is well settled that review
proceedings have to be strictly confined to
the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.
Govt. of A.P. (1964) 5 SCR 174 this Court
opined:

'11. What, however, we are now
concerned with is whether the statement in
the order of September 1959 that the case
did not involve any substantial question of
law is an 'error apparent on the face of the
record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion
the Court held on an identical state of facts
that a substantial question of law arose
would not per se be conclusive, for the
earlier order itself might be erroneous.
Similarly, even if the statement was wrong,
it would not follow that it was an 'error
apparent on the face of the record', for there
is a distinction which is real, though it might
not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterized as
vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by
no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error.'

Again, in Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC
170, while quoting with approval a passage
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma (1970) 4 SCC 389, this
Court once again held that review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a
judgment may be open to review inter alia
if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is
not self-evident and has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under
Order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not permissible
for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard
and corrected'. A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in
disguise'".
[emphasis in original]

15. The review petition refers to a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Mudgal, President,
Kalyani and others versus Union of India
and others, but neither its citation or case
number and date of decision have been
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given in the petition, nor has its copy been
provided to the Court and, therefore, this
Court cannot go through the aforesaid
judgment. However, the following passage
of the aforesaid judgment has been quoted in
the petition: -

"Error contemplated under the
rule must be such which is apparent on the
face of the record and not an error which has
to be fished out and searched. It must be an
error of inadvertence."

16. The review petition refers to a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed
Ahmad Ishaque 1954 SCC OnLine SC 8,
wherein

"...is essential that it should be
something more than a mere error; it must
be one which must be manifest on the face of
the record. The real difficulty with reference
to this matter, however, is not so much in the
statement of the principle as in its
application to the facts of a particular case.
When does an error cease to be mere error,
and become an error apparent on the face of
the record? The learned counsel on either
side were unable to suggest any clear-cut
rule by which the boundary between the two
classes of errors could be demarcated."

17. The aforesaid observations were
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
discussing the scope of a Writ of Certiorari,
as paragraph 28 of the judgment, from
where the aforesaid passage has been
extracted, begins with the words - "8. It may
therefore be taken as settled that a writ of
certiorari could be issued to correct an error
of law. But it" Although the judgment in
Hari Vishnu Kamath (Supra) is not
relevant for deciding a review petition, it
supports the approach adopted this Court
while deciding the writ Petition which was
filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari.

18. In S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC
464, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"12. An error contemplated under
the Rule must be such which is apparent on
the face of the record and not an error which
has to be fished out and searched. In other
words, it must be an error of inadvertence.
It should be something more than a mere
error and it must be one which must be
manifest on the face of the record. When
does an error cease to be mere error and
becomes an error apparent on the face of the
record depends upon the materials placed
before the court. If the error is so apparent
that without further investigation or
enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn
in favour of the applicant, in such
circumstances, the review will lie. Under
the guise of review, the parties are not
entitled to rehearing of the same issue but
the issue can be decided just by a perusal of
the records and if it is manifest can be set
right by reviewing the order...."

19. When we examine the aforesaid
grounds taken in the memo of the review
petition in light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
S.
Madhusudhan Reddy (Supra) relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioner
himself, it appears that the order dated
14.05.2024 sought to be reviewed takes into
consideration all the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even
while advancing submissions in support of
review application, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not point out any specific
material which was placed before the Court
while arguing the writ petition and which
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors, Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
17
has not been taken into consideration by this
Court while passing the order dated
14.05.2024. Therefore, the ground that this
Court did not deal with the material
presented by the petitioner on record, is
without any substance.

20. So far as the allegation levelled in
the review petition that this Court has
blindly believed the stand of the revenue that
the supplier/firm was non-existent and
bogus, the Court had considered the material
that was available before it while passing the
order sought to be reviewed. The Officers of
Special Investigating Branch had conducted
a survey of premises of the suppliers from
whom the petitioner claims to have received
inward supplies and they found that the three
firms from which the petitioner claims to
have received supplies, namely M/s Ridhi
Sidhi Enterprises, M/s Siddharth Trading
Company and M/s Satvik Enterprises, were
non-existent and bogus and the invoices had
been issued without any actual supply of
goods, upon which the petitioner had
fraudulently taken benefit of Input Tax
Credit. The Appellate Authority found that
the petitioner had produced 04 goods
receipts issued by Goyal Goods Carry
Corporation, which were on different
formats and the GSTIN mentioned on the
receipts was found to be not valid, as per the
information available on the common portal.
The mobile number printed on the goods
receipts was found to be in use of some lady
living at Kasganj and it was not of any
transport Company. No material was placed
by the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid
factual findings based on the survey of the
premises of the supplier firms made by
officials of Special Investigating Branch.
While examining the validity of the
aforesaid findings, this Court found that the
findings were based on sufficient material
and did not require any interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In
these circumstances, the allegation leveled
in the review petition that this Court has
blindly believed the stand of the revenue, is
also without any substance.

21. Although a litigant is well within
its right to challenge the validity of any
order in accordance with the law and in case
the order suffers from an error which is
apparent on the face of the record, the
litigant would be well within its right to say
so, but while assailing the orders passed by
the Constitutional Court, the learned
Advocates are expected to act with some
sense of responsibility and to ensure the
dignity of the Court even while contending
that the order passed by the Court suffers
from a patent error. The allegation that "this
Court has blindly believed the stand of the
revenue that the seller/supplier firm were
non-existent and bogus firms" besides being
incorrect, is disrespectful towards the Court.
This Court deprecates the disrespectful
manner
of
drafting
of
this
review
application.

22. The petitioner has annexed a copy
of an affidavit of one Vishal Goyal stating
that he had taken goods from M/s Ridhi
Sidhi, Siddharth Trading and Satwik
Trading Company and had delivered the
same to the petitioner during 2019-2020 and
that his Transport Company is active. The
mobile number and the GST number
mentioned on the receipts were wrong and
the transporter does not have GST
registration. The copy of the affidavit does
not bear any stamp of Notary. The material
which the petitioner now produced before
this Court, could have very well be brought
by him before the Appellate Authority by
exercise of due diligence, but he did not do
so. Moreover, it supports the findings of the
appellate authority that the GST number and
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the mobile number mentioned on the
transporter's receipt were fake. Therefore,
the copy of the affidavit of Vishal Goyal
filed by the petitioner along with the review
application does not provide any good
ground for review of the earlier order.

23. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the review petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 18
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD J.

Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1983
Connected with
Government Appeal No. 877 of 1983

Hari Shankar Rai ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.D. Gilani, Sri A.D. Giri, Sri R.K. Shahi,
Sri S.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections-302 & 304 (I) -There is an
unsuccessful attempt by the defense specially the
accused to prove that the murder of the
deceased occurred in self-defence- Mother of
accused was not brought into the witness box to
testify about that incident- Ignoring the direct
evidence like testimonies of eye-witness in which
P.W.-1 is elder brother of the deceased whereas
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are independent witnesses as
also the medical evidence and the relevant
documents,
only
on
assumption
and
presumption, the trial court convicted the
accused under Section 304-I of I.P.C- Ocular
evidence always prevails over the medical
evidence- Minor discrepancy on the part of the
Investigating Officer does not effect on the
otherwise clinching evidence produced by the
prosecution-Result Impugned order set aside-
accused-appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment.

Government Appeal allowed and Criminal
Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jai Deo Vs St. of Pun. 1963 Cr.L.J. 493

2. Tara Chand Vs St. of Har. reported in 1972
SC Cr.R. 9

3. Darbara Singh Vs St. of Pun. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 476

4. Mritunjoy Biswas Vs Pranab @ Kuti Biswas &
anr. (2013) 12 SCC 796

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned
counsel for the accused, Mr. Harish Chandra
Tiwari, learned counsel for the first
informant and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal,
learned A.G.A. for the State in both the
appeals, as well as perused the record.

2. Since these criminal appeal as well
as government appeal are directed against
the judgment and order dated 19th January,
1983 passed in Sessions Trial No. 245 of
1981 (State Vs. Mahendra Rai & Hari
Shanker Rai) arising out of Case Crime No.
215 of 1979 (251/3), under Section 302 of
I.P.C., Police Station, Tariya Sujan, DistrictDeoria, whereby the accused Hari Shanker
Rai has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo four years rigorous imprisonment
for the offence punishable under first part of