# Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 583
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-06
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 4810 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51284
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Act,1923
-
Judicial
Service
(Direct
Recruitment)
Examination-
petitioner
applied
and
disclosed that he was charged and tried at
session trials of criminal cases-iIt was also
disclosed that petitioner was acquitted at
those trials-petitioner participated in the
selection
process.
He
was
declared
successful. He secured merit position twentyseven. No material exists to reach a
conclusion that the petitioner may have
worked for any foreign intelligence agencythe petitioner was "honorably acquitted" at
two criminal trials faced by him -those orders
have attained finality.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,921 of 50,784. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._

12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583
8. In aforesaid circumstances, this
public interest litigation is disposed of with
following directions:

(I) No School's Farm land
will be leased out without a
reasoned decision taken by above
referred Committee of concerned
School.
(II) The Committee shall
consider the condition of earlier
lease,
their
consideration
and
whether earlier income generated
was deposited in School's account
or not. Committee shall also take
note of antecedent of lessee.
(III)
District
Basic
Education Officer, Meerut will take
note of shortcomings pointed out in
report and will take necessary steps
to address.
(IV)
District
Basic
Education Officer, Meerut will
communicate all 53 Schools of
District Meerut about this order.
(V)
District
Magistrate,
Meerut as well as District Basic
Education Officer, Meerut will take
note of report and its suggestions
and take all efforts to implement it,
as far as possible, if there is no
legal impediment and if necessary
be forwarded to Higher Authority
for consideration.

9. A copy of this order alongwith
report and supplementary suggestions be
sent to District Magistrate, Meerut and
District Basic Education Officer, Meerut
and for that Office of Advocate General
will take appropriate steps.

10. The Court extends it's
gratitude towards Sri Vipul Kumar and Sri
Rai Sahab Yadav, Advocates as well as Sri
Hrishabh Shukla and Ms. Diksha Shukla,
Research Associates, for their valuable
assistance.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 583
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ -A No. 4810 of 2021

Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddhartha Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Official
Secrets
Act,1923
-
Judicial
Service
(Direct
Recruitment)
Examination-
petitioner
applied
and
disclosed that he was charged and tried at
session trials of criminal cases-iIt was also
disclosed that petitioner was acquitted at
those trials-petitioner participated in the
selection
process.
He
was
declared
successful. He secured merit position twentyseven. No material exists to reach a
conclusion that the petitioner may have
worked for any foreign intelligence agencythe petitioner was "honorably acquitted" at
two criminal trials faced by him -those orders
have attained finality.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC
471

2. Joginder Singh Vs Union Territory of
Chandigarh & ors., (2015) 2 SCC 377
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & anr.
Vs Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685

4. Deputy Inspector General of Police & anr.
Vs S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598

5. Government Appeal No. 2416 of 2014

6. Writ-A No 23371 of 2018

7. Manish Saini Vs Government of NCT of
Delhi & anr., 2024 SCC Online Del 7599

8. Mahesh Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2023 SCC
Online Del 2113

9. Mohammad Imran. Vs St. of Mah. & ors.,
(2019) 17 SCC 696

10. Management of R.B.I., New Delhi Vs
Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541

11.
Union
Territory,
Chandigarh
Administration & ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar &
Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J. & Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Umang
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner; Ms. Kritika Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Sri Ashish Mishra,
learned counsel for the High Court.

2. Present writ petition has been
filed for the following relief :-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order of the State
Government
dated
26.09.2019
(Annexure No.11) and the order of
High Court on administrative side
dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure No.8);
(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction of a suitable nature
commanding the respondents to
forthwith grant appointment to the
petitioner as Additional District
Judge in U.P. Higher Judicial
Service
in
pursuance
of
his
selection in U.P. Higher Judicial
Service
(Direct
Recruitment)
Examination-2016, within a period
to be specified by this Hon'ble
Court,
with
all
consequential
benefits with effect from the date
from
which
other
selected
candidates have been appointed".

3. The undisputed facts of the case
are, the petitioner applied for selection to
the U.P. Higher Judicial Service under the
U.P. Higher
Judicial
Service
(Direct
Recruitment) Examination, 2016. In that
application, the petitioner disclosed the
facts pertaining to Session Trial No.69 of
2004, State versus Pradeep Kumar @
Akash Verma, under Sections 3, 6, 9 of
Official Secrets Act & Section 120-B IPC
and Session Trial No.236 of 2004, State
versus Pradeep Kumar @ Akash Verma,
under Section 124-A IPC, arising out of
Case Crime No.268 of 2002, Police Station
Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. It was thus
disclosed that the present petitioner was
charged and tried at those session trials. It
was also disclosed, vide judgement and
order dated 06.03.2014, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.24,
Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner was acquitted,
at those trials.

4. The petitioner participated in the
selection
process.
He
was
declared
successful. He secured merit position
twenty-seven. On 18.08.2017, the High
Court forwarded to the State Government
the
list
of
selected
candidates
and
recommended
their
appointments.
Appointment letter was not issued to the
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585
petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner
approached this Court by means of Writ-A
No.23371 of 2018, Pradeep Kumar
versus State of U.P. & others. It was
disposed of with the following directions: -

"In view of the aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances,
we
dispose of this writ petition with the
direction to the respondent No.1 to
place the matter of appointment of
the
petitioner
in
the
Higher
Judicial Service of the State of U.P.
pursuant to the recommendation of
the High Court dated 18.8.2017
before the Hon'ble Governor of the
State immediately within two weeks
and have his opinion within next
one
month,
after
necessary
consultation
with
any
other
authority, as may be deemed
proper, and thereafter to proceed, if
necessary, with the appointment.
In the end, we saddle the
respondent No.1 with an exemplary
cost
of
Rs.10
Lakh
for
the
indifferent attitude shown by it in
the matter of appointment of the
Judicial Officer and for remaining
inactive on the recommendation of
the High Court for a period of two
years. The said cost is directed to
be deposited in the Registry of the
Court within a period of one month
to be utilized for the benefit of the
litigants by the High Court".

5. That order was not challenged.
Thereafter, the matter was considered by
the
State
Government.
Vide
Office
Memorandum dated 26.09.2019, the State
Government
has
declined
to
offer
appointment to the petitioner. That Office
Memorandum has been communicated to
the petitioner, by the High Court, vide its
further communication dated 09.07.2020.
Hence this writ petition.

6. Submission of learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is, other than the
fact occurrence of two criminal cases
lodged against the petitioner, leading to two
sessions trials (noted above) faced by the
petitioner, there is no adverse circumstance
existing or considered by the State
Government in declining to issue the
appointment letter to the petitioner. As to
the criminal trials faced by the petitioner, it
has been strenuously urged that the entire
prosecution story was concocted. It has
been found to be false by learned trial
court, in its judgement and order dated
06.03.2014. Referring to paragraph nos. 27,
28, 29, 30 and 31 of that judgement and
order passed by the learned trial court, it
has been submitted, the prosecution could
not prove : (i) that the documents i.e.
copies of alleged maps produced at the
trials,
were
confidential
or
secret
documents; (ii) that those documents had
been recovered from the petitioner; (iii) the
documents produced at the trials were the
same as were allegedly recovered from the
petitioner; (iv) that the petitioner called or
spoke to any foreign national or passed on
any information, telephonically; (v) that the
petitioner spoke to or was in contact with
any foreign national; (vi) that there existed
any element of conspiracy; (vii) that
ingredients
of
offence
alleged
under
Section 124-A IPC, existed. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
& Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Joginder
Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh
and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 377.

7. On the other hand, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel would
contend that the allegations levelled against
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner are most serious. The
petitioner was a spy and worked for an
enemy nation. He was apprehended on a
joint operation of the Special Task Force
(STF) of the State Government and
Military Intelligence. He was charged
under the Official Secrets Act. Though, the
criminal trials failed, the State Government
had enough material to reach a conclusion
that the petitioner's character could not be
certified. He was wholly undeserving of the
appointment.

8. Learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has also placed on record
a copy of the report submitted by the
Military
authority
to
the
District
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, U.P. (dated
25.7.2019). The same has been retained on
record. It reads as below:

"District Magistrate
Kanpur Nagar (UP)
COMMENTS ON DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE KANPUR NAGAR
LETTER NO 1770-B/ST-DM-2019
DATED 25 JUL 2019
1. Reference to your office letter No 1770B/ST-DM-2019 dt 25 Jul 2019.
2. Comments on your office letter quoted
above are given in succeeding paras.
3. Brief of the Case.
(a) Based on the records held with
concerned Army authorities, there were
inputs received from sister intelligence
agencies, Pradeep Kumar @ Akash Verma
was on the radar of Military Intelligence
(MI) in 2002 for involvement in Pakistar
espionage activities. He was a graduate in
Law and was unemployed at that time. His
father was also found to be suspended from
the service of an additional Judge for
charges of bribery in 1990. Pradeep Kumar
was apprehended in a joint operation by
STF and Military Intelligence on 13 Jun
2002. At the time of arrest, he was residing
in Kanpur (UP).
(b)
Information
avail
at
the
time
apprehension:-
(i) Name :

 Pradeep
Kumar s/o Mr. Jagdish Prasad.
(ii) Age :

27 Years.
(iii) Profession :

Unemployed.
(iv Marital Status :

 Unmarried.
(v) Residence
Address:
House
No
43/122, Rajendra Mohal Chowk Police
Station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar
(vi) Education :

Graduation
from
DAV College, LLB, Diploma in Computer
Plg from AITC and Internet Training.
(vii) Religion :

Hindu.

CONFIDENTIAL

4. As per inputs on record, Pradeep Kumar
in search of easy money options had come
in contact of an individual namely Faizan
Illahi, s/o Imam of Badi Masjid at Meston
Road. Faizan was running a Photostat shop
at that time. Faizan asked Pradeep to
provide him some information on telephone
in exchange of money. Thereafter, Pradeep
started receiving PIO calls on his landline
No 0512-366701 and became part of the
PIO network. Reportedly, Pradeep Kumar
passed sensitive information like names of
units and officers of Kanpur cantonment
for Rs 18,000/-. He proceeded on to open a
cyber café and share more information with
the handlers. He was identified and
neutralized in the initial stages itself and
thereafter handed over to the local police
Kanpur Nagar. The recovered documents
from the individual including data of
Kanpur Cantonment and a service map
were found to be of classified nature.
5. The case was closed by the Army
authorities in 2002.
6
Further
details
regarding
the
apprehension and the charge sheet filed
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
may be sought from STF, UP or district
police.
7. For information and necessary action
please.
(XXX)
Colonel, Administrative Commandant"

9. She has also relied on the
contents of the paragraph 14 of the counter
affidavit filed by the State Government. It
reads as below:

"14.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph nos.29 and 30 of the
Writ Petition are not admitted
hence denied. In reply, it is
submitted
that
letter
dated
27.07.2019
of
the
Military
Intelligence has been received
along with the report of the District
Magistrate,
Kanpur
dated
28.07.2019, in which it has been
mentioned that the allegations of
spying against India had been
leveled upon the petitioner, which
in itself is serious allegation and
the then Army Officer had proved
the allegation as P.W. 5 against the
petitioner in the criminal case
against him. District Magistrate,
Kanpur did not find the petitioner
as deserving (suitable) for the post
in
his
above
report
dated
28.07.2019. Apart from it, the
petitioner has concealed material
facts in the online application form
filed by him for Uttar Pradesh
Higher
Judicial
Services
Examination - 2016 for police
verification. In view of the above
mentioned facts and circumstance
candidature of the petitioner has
been cancelled vide office order
dated
26.09.20219
of
Niyukti
Anubhag-4."
10. Therefore, reasonable doubt
exists as to the character of the petitioner.
Reliance has also been placed on the fact
that the petitioner's father - a judicial
officer, was dismissed from service on
charges of corruption.

11. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record. In
Avtar Singh (supra), a slightly different
issue was examined by the Supreme Court
- whether, upon suppression of information
or upon not submitting or submitting false
information, in the verification form,
pertaining to past criminal conviction or
criminal prosecution or arrest or pendency
of a criminal case, a right to appointment
earned pursuant to selection/examination
etc., may be defeated. In that it was
concluded as below:

"38.
We
have
noticed
various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far
as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion,
we
summarise
our
conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to
the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or
pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering
into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false
mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order
of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for
giving
false
information,
the
employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any,
while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall
take
into
consideration
the
government
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders/instructions/rules,
applicable to the employee, at the
time of taking the decision.
38.4. In
case
there
is
suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case
where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling
of the application/verification form
and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourses appropriate to
the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in
nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would
not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or
false information by condoning the
lapse.
38.4.2. Where
conviction
has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may
cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee.
38.4.3. If
acquittal
had
already been recorded in a case
involving
moral
turpitude
or
offence of heinous/serious nature,
on technical ground and it is not a
case of clean acquittal, or benefit
of reasonable doubt has been
given, the employer may consider
all relevant facts available as to
antecedents,
and
may
take
appropriate decision as to the
continuance
of
the
employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee
has made declaration truthfully of
a concluded criminal case, the
employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, and cannot
be
compelled
to
appoint
the
candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character
verification
form
regarding
pendency of a criminal case of
trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in
its discretion, may appoint the
candidate subject to decision of
such case.
38.7. In
a
case
of
deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases
such false information by itself will
assume
significance
and
an
employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or
terminating
services
as
appointment of a person against
whom multiple criminal cases were
pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was
pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the
form, still it may have adverse
impact
and
the
appointing
authority would take decision after
considering the seriousness of the
crime.
38.9. In case the employee
is
confirmed
in
service, holding departmental
enquiry would be necessary before
passing
order
of
termination/removal or dismissal
on the ground of suppression or
submitting false information in
verification form.
38.10. For
determining
suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to
be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
be specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked
for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an
objective manner while addressing
the question of fitness. However, in
such cases action cannot be taken
on
basis
of
suppression
or
submitting false information as to a
fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is
held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the
fact must be attributable to him.
39. We
answer
the
reference
accordingly.
Let
the
matters
be
placed
before
an
appropriate
Bench
for
consideration on merits."

Those being contingencies other
than acquittal, we may examine the matter
a little further.

12.

In
Deputy
Inspector
General of Police & Anr. vs S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, the
Supreme Court considered the meaning
and effect of the phrases "honourable
acquittal", "acquitted of blame" and
"fully exonerated". It found those phrases
are not different concepts under any
statutory law rather, they are phrases
coined by judicial pronouncements. Thus,
an order of "honourable acquittal" is one
where an accused though charged and put
to trial, faces that trial on the full strength
of the prosecution evidence. Thereafter,
the trial court offers full consideration to
that evidence and finds (as a fact) that the
prosecution had "miserably failed to
prove the charges levelled against the
accused". In that regard, it first observed
as below:
"24. The meaning of the
expression "honourable acquittal"
came up for consideration before
this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994
SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC
619] . In that case, this Court has
considered
the
impact
of
Regulation 46(4) dealing with
honourable acquittal by a criminal
court
on
the
disciplinary
proceedings. In that context, this
Court held that the mere acquittal
does not entitle an employee to
reinstatement
in
service,
the
acquittal, it was held, has to be
honourable.
The
expressions
"honourable acquittal", "acquitted
of blame", "fully exonerated" are
unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code,
which are coined by judicial
pronouncements. It is difficult to
define precisely what is meant by
the
expression
"honourably
acquitted". When the accused is
acquitted after full consideration of
prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution had miserably failed to
prove the charges levelled against
the accused, it can possibly be said
that the accused was honourably
acquitted".
(emphasis supplied)

13. Then, applying that test, in
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi &
Anr. vs Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685,
two
contingencies
came
up
for
consideration - whether civil consequences
arising from an alleged transaction may be
avoided, where the charged person may
either
be
acquitted
for
reason
of
compromise reached between the parties or
upon the prosecution witness turning
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hostile. It was held, exoneration from civil
consequences may not arise in either of the
above noted two contingencies. It was held
as below:

"34. The respondents are
trying to draw mileage from the
fact that in their application and/or
attestation form they have disclosed
their involvement in a criminal
case. We do not see how this fact
improves their case. Disclosure of
these
facts
in
the
application/attestation form is an
essential requirement. An aspirant
is expected to state these facts
honestly. Honesty and integrity are
inbuilt requirements of the police
force. The respondents should not,
therefore, expect to score any
brownie points because of this
disclosure. Besides, this has no
relevance to the point in issue. It
bears repetition to state that while
deciding whether a person against
whom
a
criminal
case
was
registered and who was later on
acquitted or discharged should be
appointed to a post in the police
force, what is relevant is the nature
of the offence, the extent of his
involvement, whether the acquittal
was a clean acquittal or an
acquittal by giving benefit of doubt
because
the
witnesses
turned
hostile or because of some serious
flaw in the prosecution, and the
propensity of such person to
indulge in similar activities in
future.
This
decision,
in
our
opinion, can only be taken by the
Screening Committee created for
that purpose by the Delhi Police. If
the Screening Committee's decision
is not mala fide or actuated by
extraneous considerations, then, it
cannot be questioned".
(emphasis supplied)

14. As to the difference between an
acquittal and a honourable acquittal and its
effect, in Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration & Ors. Vs Pradeep
Kumar & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797, the
Supreme Court again considered the law
laid down by it in S. Samuthiram (supra)
and Management of Reserve Bank of
India, New Delhi Vs Bhopal Singh
Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541. It observed as
below:

"10. The acquittal in a
criminal case is not conclusive of
the suitability of the candidates in
the post concerned. If a person is
acquitted or discharged, it cannot
always be inferred that he was
falsely involved or he had no
criminal antecedents. Unless it is
an
honourable
acquittal,
the
candidate cannot claim the benefit
of the case......"
(emphasis supplied)

15. In Joginder Singh (supra), the
appointment against selection earned at a
public examination was denied for reason
of criminal trial faced. There also, an order
of honourable acquittal had been earned by
the selected candidate/petitioner. In that,
the Supreme Court reasoned as below:

"24.................Thus,
as
rightly pointed out by the trial
court that as the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges against
the appellant by adducing cogent
evidence,
therefore,
the
police
authorities cannot be allowed to sit
in judgment over the findings
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
recorded by the Sessions Court in
its judgment, wherein the appellant
has been honourably acquitted.
Denying him the appointment to the
post of a Constable is like a
vicarious punishment, which is not
permissible in law, therefore, the
impugned judgment and order [UT,
Chandigarh v. Central
Administrative Tribunal, (2008) 2
PLR 565] passed by the High Court
is vitiated in law and liable to be
set aside."
(emphasis supplied)

16. In Mohammad Imran. Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2019) 17
SCC 696, that petitioner was also selected
for
appointment
in
judicial
service.
Meanwhile, he had been charged with
commission of offence under Sections 363,
366 and 34 IPC. He was honourably
acquitted of that charge, by the criminal
court. Yet, his character was not verified for
reason of his having faced that criminal
trial. Negating the objection raised by the
State-respondents,
the
Supreme
Court
reasoned as below:

"9.....The report received
reveals that except for the criminal
case under reference in which he
has been acquitted, the appellant
has a clean record and there is no
adverse material against him to
deny him the fruits of his academic
labour in a competitive selection
for the post of a judicial officer. In
our opinion, no reasonable person
on the basis of the materials placed
before
us
can
come
to
the
conclusion that the antecedents and
character of the appellant are such
that he is unfit to be appointed as a
judicial officer."
(emphasis supplied)

17. The Delhi High Court in
Mahesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and
Others, 2023 SCC Online Del 2113,
observed as below:

"19. In trial for criminal
offences, the accused is presumed
to be innocent unless proved guilty
and it is the duty of the prosecution
for establishing the actus reus of
the crime as well as the mens rea.
When the accused is acquitted after
full consideration of prosecution
evidence
and
the
prosecution
miserably fails to prove the charges
levelled against the accused, it can
possibly be said that the accused
was honourably acquitted as held
in Inspector General of Police v. S.
Samuthiram [Inspector General of
Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1
SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229].
20. There can be no second
opinion that each case is to be
scrutinised on its own facts through
the designated officers and in case
of the police force, the scrutiny
needs to be more closer since the
police officials are under a duty to
tackle lawlessness. However, at the
same time, generalisations cannot
be made to deny the offer of
appointment merely on the basis of
registration
of
FIR
without
considering the reasoning in the
judgment and the relevant facts and
circumstances. Apart
from
the
registration of the aforesaid FIR,
there is nothing on record to reflect
that the antecedents or the conduct
of the petitioner disqualified him in
any manner for the appointment to
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the post of SI (EXE), Delhi Police.
It may be difficult to presume that
the petitioner would be a threat to
the discipline of the police force
merely on account of aforesaid FIR
and also considering the fact that
petitioner had already joined on
selection as SI (EXE) in CISF in an
exam conducted by SSC. It does not
appear to be logical that the
petitioner who was found fit for
appointment to the post of SI in
CISF may be held to be unsuitable
for appointment in Delhi Police on
the basis of exam conducted by the
same recruiting agency i.e. SSC."

18. Again, in Manish Saini Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi and
Another, 2024 SCC Online Del 7599, the
Delhi High Court had the occasion to
consider similar lingering suspicion in the
context of honourable acquittal earned by
the selected person. It observed as below:

"38. The decision of the
Screening Committee, as contained
in the order dated 24 September
2019, is completely at odds with the
judgment of the learned ASJ, and is
inherently presumptuous. It defeats
comprehension as to how the
Screening Committee could allege
that the petitioner was "involved in
serious nature of offence like
attempt to robbery" when the
learned ASJ has held otherwise.
The alleged possession, by the
petitioner,
of
spring
actuated
knives, which appears to be what
has most disturbed the Screening
Committee,
has
also
been
disbelieved by the learned ASJ. The
use of the words "as such"
indicates that it was the alleged
possession
of
knives
by
the
accused, including the petitioner,
which has most influenced the
Screening Committee to hold him
unfit for appointment.
39. We are constrained to
hold that the Screening Committee
has effectively sat in appeal over
the judgment of the learned ASJ,
which it was not competent to do. It
is
nobody's
case
that
the
petitioner's
antecedents
were
otherwise murky. The only blot on
his escutcheon, if one may call it
that, was the criminal trial in which
he found himself involved. The
Screening
Committee
had,
therefore,
before
it
only
the
judgment of the learned ASJ on the
basis of which it had to determine
the suitability of the petitioner for
appointment
as
SI.
It
was,
therefore, required to scrupulously
appreciate the judgment of the
learned ASJ, and we are of the
considered opinion that it has
failed to do so. The observations of
the Screening Committee are totally
at variance with those of the
learned ASJ and, therefore, we
cannot accord, to the decision of
the
Screening
Committee,
the
respect
which
it
otherwise
commands.
40.
According
to
us,
therefore, the decision of the
Screening Committee suffers from
non-application of mind and is,
therefore, perverse, as understood
in law, as it fails to appreciate the
material before it in the proper
perspective."

19. In the present case, same issue
was first raised at the initial stage. The
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593
petitioner approached this Court by means
of earlier Writ-A No 23371 of 2018
(Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others). The Court took note of Rule 13 of
the
governing
Rules,
the
order
of
honourable acquittal passed in favour of the
petitioner
and
thereafter
issued
the
direction, as extracted above.

20. At present, other than the selfsame material that was considered at the
trial faced by the petitioner, no other or
further material has come into existence
and no other or further material has been
considered by the State authorities, to not
certify the character of the petitioner. Mere
repetition of words or reiteration of the
suspicion or belief, and/or continued
reliance on the self-same material that gave
rise to the criminal trial, is irrelevant. In
absence of any foundational or basic
relevant fact being proven or established
before the learned trial Court, on strength
of such material, mere reliance on the
seriousness of the charge levelled, causes
no consequential legal effect.

21. Next, it cannot be denied that
the petitioner faced a heavy charge of
espionage, and the matter required careful
consideration by the State authorities, at the
same time, it remained material and
relevant that the petitioner was "honourably
acquitted" at the criminal trial, with no
element of truth found in the prosecution
story on most fundamental/vital aspects of
the allegation that had a direct bearing on
the petitioner's moral character. Other than
the
fact
of
his
arrest
proven,
the
prosecution could neither establish that the
documents/copies of alleged maps were
confidential nor that any secret document
had been recovered from the petitioner nor
that the documents produced at the trial
were the same as had been recovered from
the petitioner nor that the petitioner had
called or spoken or met any foreign
spy/agent or person nor it was proven that
the petitioner acted inimical to the interest
of the country nor that he was part of any
conspiracy and nor that he had committed
any offence under Section 124-A IPC.

22. In the present case, none of the
witnesses produced by the prosecution
turned hostile. On the contrary, they sought
to prove the prosecution case, as presented
to the Court. The trial court made full
appraisal
of
the
said
evidence
and
thereafter reached its conclusions as below:

"27. पत्रावली पर इस सम्बन्ि में कोई
साक्ष्य उपलब्ि नहीं है, दजससे यह सादबत हो सके दक
कदथत प्रिदशात िस्तावेज प्रिशा क-6 एवं क-7 दकस
मूल अदभलेख / नक्शे की छाया प्रदतयां हैं। साक्षी
पी०डब्लू०-5 मेजर ए०एम० दसंह ने अपनी प्रदतपरीक्षा
के पृष्ठ-5 पर यह कहा है दक 'सेना के मूल नक्शे सेना
के कायाालय में रहते हैं और प्रस्तुत नक्शे पर सेना से
सम्बदन्ित शब्ि अंदकत नहीं है और नक्शे पर कानपुर
छावनी का तथ्य भी अंदकत नहीं है।" आगे इस साक्षी ने
यह भी कहा है "दक सेना के नक्शे बगैर अदिकारी की
अनुमदत के बाहर नहीं जा सकते हैं और न ही छाया
प्रदतयां बनायी जा सकती हैं।" उि िस्तावेजों के
पररशीलन से यह प्रतीत होता है दक उि िस्तावेजों में
कानपुर कैन्टोनमेन्ट की बाजार एररया, बंगला एररया,
दसदवल और दमलेिी की जनसंख्या, सडकों की संख्या,
अस्पताल, मंदिर, मदस्जि, गुरुद्वारा, चचा, दसनेमा
हाउस, माकेट इत्यादि तथ्यों का उललेख है और नक्शे
की जो फोटो प्रदत िादखल है, उसमें कोई दवदशष्ट दचन्ह
िूरी के सम्बन्ि में अंदकत नहीं है और यह नक्शा
सामान्य तौर से प्रत्येक जगह पर नक्शे के रूप में पाया
जा सकता है।
उि नक्शा एवं िस्तावेज दकस प्रकार
गोपनीय थे, के दबन्िु पर दवद्वान सहायक दजला
शासकीय अदिविा द्वारा यह कहा गया है दक उि
नक्शा एवं िस्तावेज को पी०डब्लू०-5 मेजर ए०एम०
दसंह ने अपनी ररपोटा प्रिशा क-5 में बताया है। इसके
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प्रदतवाि में दवद्वान अदिविा बचावपक्ष द्वारा यह कहा
गया है दक प्रश्नगत मामले में नक्शा एवं िस्तावेज दकसी
भी प्रकार से गोपनीय नहीं है, क्योंदक कानपुर
कैन्टोनमेन्ट के दवषय में कोई भी जानकारी इण्टरनेट पर
उपलब्ि है तथा उि प्रकार का कोई भी नक्शा सामान्य
रूप से बाजारों एवं गूगल मैप से प्राप्त दकया जा सकता
है और उसको प्रत्येक व्यदि कहीं से भी प्राप्त कर
सकता है। चूंदक अदभयोजन का सम्पूणा कथानक दक
उि िस्तावेज अथाात् प्रिशा क-6 एवं क-7 गोपनीय
िस्तावेज हैं, मूल रूप से पी०डब्लू०-5 मेजर ए०एम०
दसंह के साक्ष्य पर दनभार है। अतः इस सम्बन्ि में मेरे
द्वारा पी०डब्लू०-5 मेजर ए० एम० दसंह के साक्ष्य का
पररशीलन दकया गया। इस साक्षी ने प्रिशा क-5 में
िस्तावेजों को सैन्य िस्तावेज नहीं बताया है। अपने
साध्य में उनके द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है दक उि
िस्तावेज सैन्य दवभाग के िस्तावेज हैं, जबदक वे कानपुर
के सबसे वररष्ठ इन्टेलीजेन्स आदफसर के रूप में तैनात
थे, जो पांच दजलों से सम्बंदित मामले के इन्टेलीजेन्स
आदफसर थे और उन्हें ही दनणाय िेना पड़ता था। वे यह
भी स्वीकार करते हैं दक सेना के मूल नक्शे सेना के
कायाालय में रहते हैं तथा नक्शे में कानपुर छावनी भी
अंदकत नहीं है। ऐसे नक्शे सेना के सभी कायाालयों में
रहते हैं। सेना के नक्शे दबना अदिकारी की अनुमदत के
बाहर नहीं दनकाले जा सकते हैं और न ही उनकी छाया
प्रदतयां करायी जा सकती हैं। वे यह भी कहते हैं दक
कानपुर दस्थत सेना के दकसी कायाालय के सैन्य
अदिकारी अथवा कमाचारी के दवरूद्ध इस सम्बन्ि में
कोई कायावाही नहीं की गयी है, दजनके द्वारा कोई नक्शा
चोरी से दनकालकर फोटो प्रदत करा िी गयी हों उपरोि
के अदतररि उनके द्वारा यह भी स्वीकार दकया गया दक
केवल संस्थान के नाम दलखने से कागज गोपनीय
िस्तावेज के श्रेणी में नहीं आता है, लेदकन जो सूचनायें
प्रिशा क-6 में अंदकत हैं, उसके आिार पर यह गोपनीय
िस्तावेज की श्रेणी में आता है। प्रिशा क-6 के
पररशीलन से स्पष्ट होता है दक उि कागज में कानपुर
कैन्टोनमेन्ट के बाजार एररया, बंगला एररया, मंदिर,
मदस्जि इत्यादि का उललेख है। यह एक सामान्य
िस्तावेज है, जो दकसी भी तैयारी करने वाले प्रदतयोगी
के पास भी प्राप्त हो सकता है और दवदभन्न साक्षात्कारों
में भी यह प्रश्न पूछा जाता है और उि जानकाररयां
इण्टरनेट पर आसानी से उपलब्ि है। प्रिशा क-6 में
कानपुर में तैनात सैदनकों की संख्या, तोपों का दववरण
एवं युद्धक दवमानों आदि की संख्या का कोई उललेख
नहीं है। अतः ऐसी दस्थदत में मेरा यह मत है दक कदथत
िस्तावेज गोपनीय िस्तावेज की श्रेणी में आता है, के
सम्बन्ि में अदभयोजन की तरफ से कोई पुदष्टकारक
साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं दकया गया है और इन िस्तावेजों को
गोपनीय िस्तावेजों की श्रेणी में नहीं माना जा सकता है।
इससे अदभयोजन कथानक का मूल प्रदतकूल रूप से
प्रभादवत होता है और जहां मामले में पररवाि िादखल न
दकया गया हो, यह समस्त कायावाही को िूल-िूसररत
कर िेता है और अदभयोजन कथानक में गंभीर िोष
उत्पन्न होता है।
28. अब मेरे द्वारा अदभयुि के दवद्वान
अदिविा के इस तका पर दवचार दकया गया दक कदथत
पुदलन्िे वस्तु प्रिशा-4 पर अदभयुि के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है।
इस सम्बन्ि में मेरे द्वारा साक्षी पी०डब्लू०-1
उपदनरीक्षक लललूराम त्यागी के साक्ष्य का पररशीलन
दकया गया।
वस्तु प्रिशा-4 पुदलन्िे पर अदभयुि के कोई
हस्ताक्षर पुदलस िल द्वारा नहीं कराये गये और न ही इस
बात का कोई उललेख प्रिशा क-1 फिा बरामिगी एवं
दगरफ्तारी में है। साक्षी पी०डब्लू०-1 वािी ने अपनी
मुख्य परीक्षा में भी पुदलन्िे पर अदभयुि के हस्ताक्षर
होने के दवषय में कोई कथन नहीं कहे हैं। इस साक्षी ने
अपनी प्रदतपरीक्षा के पृष्ठ-18 पर यह स्वीकार दकया है
दक "दजस कपड़े में सील दकया था, उस पर मुदलजम के
हस्ताक्षर नहीं कराये थे। अन्य सादक्षयों के भी हस्ताक्षर
सीलबन्ि पुदलन्िे पर नहीं बनवाये थे।" ऐसी दस्थदत में
माननीय इलाहाबाि उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अविाररत
दवदि व्यवस्था बेनी प्रसाि बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य 2003
(46) ए०सी०सी० पृष्ठ संख्या-701 में उदललदखत
दवदि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यदि अदभयुि के हस्ताक्षर
वस्तु प्रिशा के सीलयुि पैकेट पर नहीं है तो उि
बरामिगी संिेहास्पि मानी जायेगी। अतः ऐसी दस्थदत में
कदथत बरामिगी के सम्बन्ि में दनश्ययात्मक दवनश्चय
नहीं दकया जा सकता है दक अदभयुि के पास से कदथत
रूप से उि बरामिगी हुयी थी।
29. अदभयुि के पास से कदथत रूप से
टेलीफोन का एक दबल भी बरामि होने का कथन
अदभयोजन की ओर से दकया गया है। उि
पी०सी०ओ० की पची दकस पी०सी०ओ० की है और
दजस नम्बर पर कदथत रूप से बात करना बतायी जा रही
है, के सम्बन्ि में दववेचक द्वारा कोई जानकारी नहीं िी
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
595
गयी है। उि पची में उदललदखत तथ्य सत्य है अथवा
नहीं अथवा बी०एस०एन०एल० के टेलीफोन से उन
नम्बरों पर कदथत रूप से कोई बात हुयी अथवा नहीं के
सम्बंि में कोई सम्पोषणात्मक साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर
संकदलत नहीं दकया गया है। कदथत रूप से उि
टेलीफोन एक अन्तराष्िीय काल है, दजससे पादकसतान
में बात होना अदभयोजन की तरफ से कहा गया है।
बी०एस०एन०एस० के नम्बर से दजन-दजन नम्बरों पर
बात हुयी थी, उसका काल दडटेल बड़ी आसानी से प्राप्त
दकया जा सकता था, दजसे दववेचक द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं
दकया गया है। इससे दववेचक द्वारा की गयी दववेचना की
दनष्पक्षता प्रभादवत होती है और अदभयोजन कथानक
की दवश्वसनीयता पुनः प्रभादवत होती है।
30. जहां तक अदभयुि के दवरूद्ध
दवरदचत आरोप अन्तगात िारा-120बी का प्रश्न है, तो
आपरादिक षडयन्त्र के अपराि के दलये अदभयोजन को
यह सादबत करना पड़ेगा दक उि षडयन्त्र में पक्षकारों
की सहमदत दकसी अवैि काया या वैि काया अवैि
सािनों से करने की थी। प्रश्नगत मामले में कदथत रूप से
षडयन्त्र में िूसरे व्यदि के रूप में शादमल होने का कथन
पादकस्तान के आई०एस०आई० एजेन्ट को बताया गया
है, परन्तु पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई क उपलब्ि नहीं है,
दजससे यह सादबत हो सके दक अदभयुि का कोई
सम्बन्ि पादकस्तान से दकसी भी प्रकार से था। इस
सम्बन्ि में दववेचक द्वारा न तो टेलीफोन के सम्बन्ि में
जानकारी प्राप्त की गयी और न ही अन्य दकसी व्यदि
को कदथत रूप से वह नक्शे दिये जा रहे थे, के सम्बन्ि
में कोई साक्ष्य संकदलत दकया गया। अतः ऐसी दस्थदत में
अदभयोजन अदभयुि के दवरूद्ध िारा-120बी
भा०ि०सं० के आरोप को युदियुि संिेह से परे सादबत
करने में दवफल रहा है।
31. जंहा तक अदभयुि के दवरूद्ध
दवरदचत आरोप अन्तागत िारा-124 भा०ि०स० का
प्रश्न है, तो इस िारा के अिीन अदभयोजन द्वारा
अदभयुि को िोषदसद्ध करने के दलये यह सादबत करना
पड़ेगा दक अदभयुि द्वारा सरकार के प्रदत घृणा या
अवमान पैिा की गयी अथवा उसका प्रयत्न दकया गया
तथा उसका यह काया शब्िों द्वारा, जो शब्िों द्वारा
अथवा दलखा हो सकता है, संकेतों द्वारा अथवा
दृश्यरूपण दकया गया। प्रश्नगत मामले में अदभयोजन की
ओर से प्रस्तुत सादक्षयों के साक्ष्य से सरकार के प्रदत
घृणा यह अवमान पैिा करने अथवा अप्रीदत प्रिीप्त करने
या प्रिीप्त करने का प्रयत्न करने के सम्बन्ि में कोई
साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि नहीं है। अतः ऐसी दस्थदत
में अदभयुि के दवरूद्ध दवरदचत आरोप अन्र्तगत िारा-
124ए भा०ि०सं० का अपराि भी सादबत नहीं है।"

23. The judgment and order of the
learned Court below has been confirmed in
Government Appeal No. 2416 of 2014
(State of U.P. Vs. Pradeep Kumar alias
Akash Verma), decided on 7.2.2018. In
that this Court dismissed that appeal, on the
following reasoning:

"Considering the above
legal proposition, I do not find
illegality, infirmity or perversity in
the impugned judgement and order.
The view taken by the trial Court is
just and does not suffer from any
misreading
of
any
material
evidence on record."

The above order has attained
finality. No further appeal is disclosed to
have been filed there against.

24.