# Prakash Agarwal v. Registrar General Allahabad High Court Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 436
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-04-17
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 2228 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sudhir Kumar Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakash-agarwal-v-registrar-general-allahabad-high-court-allahabad-ors-42849
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compassionate appointment-can not be
denied on financial ground-except the
requirement under Rule 5-consideration
should be made within three month in
absence of period prescribed under rule-if
qualified for class III post be appointed
only on class III and not on class 4th -
certain guide lines issued-order denying
appointment on financial considerationwholly beyond statutory requirement-if
appointment denied-reason be recorded.

Held: Para-22 & 30

## Text

436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

since the Head Constable is supposed to be
dedicated person and while in duty he should
perform
his
duty
meticulously.
The
Advocate has no grudge against duty
personnel and he parked his vehicle and
while coming to Gate No.5 he has no
business to challenge the constable. There
was no occasion for him to make altercation
with the constable because he did not create
any hindrance either in parking the vehicle or
elsewhere and he even did not check him
while he was driving. The allegations are that
subsequently he came and challenged, it
appears that the offence under Sections, 332
& 353 are not attracted and, therefore, it
would not be proper for prosecution to
continue the proceedings unnecessarily and
to waste precious time of Court and
definitely it will cover gross abuse of the
powers of any court because the Court has
exercised the jurisdiction without observing
the due formalities as mentioned in the Act.
The court has mechanically passed the order
and took cognizance without scrutinizing the
contents of the charge-sheet. The court
should have scrutinized the matter in view of
Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., it was the duty of the
court to ascertain as to what are the offences
and whether the offences are made out or
not. If the facts do not constitute the offence,
it would not be proper for the court to just
take cognizance. The cognizance means the
constitution
of
the
offence.
In
the
aforementioned circumstances, there is
nothing like voluntarily causing hurt. The
allegations appear to be plain that the
applicant-Advocate
passed
the
vehicle
besides the complainant, who escaped unhurt
but there is nothing like voluntarily causing
hurt. Therefore, the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

9. The application is allowed and
Charge-sheet dated 27.07.2008 relating to
Case Crime No.567 of 2008, under Sections
332, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is hereby
quashed, which is pending before A.C.J.M.,
C.B.I., Lucknow.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA, J.

Service Single No. 2228 of 2014

Prakash Agarwal... ............Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General Allahabad High Court
Allahabad & Ors... ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Pawan Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Kumar

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compassionate appointment-can not be
denied on financial ground-except the
requirement under Rule 5-consideration
should be made within three month in
absence of period prescribed under rule-if
qualified for class III post be appointed
only on class III and not on class 4th -
certain guide lines issued-order denying
appointment on financial considerationwholly beyond statutory requirement-if
appointment denied-reason be recorded.

Held: Para-22 & 30
22. Rule 5 makes its incumbent upon
the
appointing
authority
to
give
suitable
employment
if
applicant
fulfills the conditions contemplated
under Rule 5. State Government has
reserved the right to condone the
delay in case applicant moved the
application beyond five years, taking
into consideration the undue hardship
in
any
particular
case.
Appointee
under Rules has been obligated to
maintain other members of the family
1 All] Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad & Ors.

437
of the deceased who were dependent
upon him before his death and are
unable to maintain themselves. Failure
to maintain them would result in
termination of service.

30. From the above, it can be culled out
that under Rule 5, appointing authority has
to satisfy itself that spouse or the applicant
himself is not employed under the Central
Government or State Government or the
Corporation owned or controlled by the
Central or State Government, he fulfills the
educational qualification prescribed for the
post and is otherwise qualified i.e. does not
suffer
from
any
disqualification.
Appointing authority will further satisfy
itself that candidate will be able to
maintain the minimum standards of work
and efficiency and is suitable in all respect,
he is physically and mentally fit and has
not more than one wife living if applicant
is male and if applicant is female, she has
not married a person already having a
wife. Except these requirements, no other
requirement is contemplated under the
Rules.

Case Law Discussed:
1994(4) SCC 136; {(2012) 9 SCC 545}; UPLBEC
2014(1).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.)

1. This petition is directed against
the order dated 28.09.2013 passed by
District Judge rejecting application for
compassionate appointment.

2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Manish
Kumar,
learned
counsel
for
respondents.

3. Petitioner claims appointment on the
death of his father a Class-IV employee in
the judgeship of Sitapur. Petitioner's mother
had also moved an application before District
Judge, Sitapur stating that her son Prakash
Agarwal (present petitioner) may be given
compassionate appointment as there is no
other source of livelihood.

4. It appears that on above application,
District Judge constituted a Committee
which sought information vide order dated
25.09.2013 regarding financial status of
employee. This information was to be
furnished within a week.

5. Submission is that District Judge
vide order dated 28.09.2013 rejected the
petitioner's
application
without
giving
effective opportunity; consequently, order
cannot be sustained.

6. Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondents has produced the original
record before the Court pertaining to
petitioner's case.

7. I have perused the order passed
by
District
Judge,
Sitapur
dated
28.09.2013. District Judge observed that
petitioner has not submitted the details of
property as directed by the Committee.

8. D.J. has referred to report of
Grievance
Redressal
Committee
dated
28.09.2013.

9. A perusal of report dated 28.09.2013
shows that Committee has acknowledged the
issuance of letter dated 25.09.2013 by
chairman of committee asking Prakash
Agarwal to give details of income and
property. By this letter a week's time was
allowed to give details. Surprisingly, report has
been submitted on 28.09.2013 before expiry of
the time. It is not clear what prompted the
Committee to act in such a haste. Committee
should have waited till the expiry of period
given in the letter. In any case District Judge
having passed order on 28.09.2013, action of
Committee looses significance.
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Learned District Judge has relied
upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
given in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal
Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994(4) SCC
136 wherein it has been held that the
Government or the public authority concerned
has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased.

11. Rule required District Judge to
examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased or the applicant
but the order has been passed before
expiry of the period given to petitioner to
furnish the financial details, as such
finding recorded in this regard cannot be
sustained. Consequently, impugned order
being illegal, has to be quashed.

12. Sri Manish Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondents has relied
upon decision given in the case of Umesh
Kumar(supra). Relevant part of the
judgment is reproduced below:

" The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that
but for the provision of employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis that
a job is to be offered to the eligible member
of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV
are the lowest posts in non-manual and
manual categories and hence they alone can
be offered on compassionate grounds, the
object being to relieve the family, of the
financial destitution and to help it get over
the
emergency.
The
provision
of
employment in such lowest posts by making
an exception to the rule is justifiable and
valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable
treatment
given
to
such
dependent of the deceased employee in such
posts has a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution."

13. He has also placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court given in State of
Gujarat and others Vs. Arvind Kumar T.
Tiwari and another {(2012) 9 SCC 545].
Relevant para 8 is reproduced below:

"It is a settled legal proposition that
compassionate
appointment
cannot
be
claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply
another method of recruitment. A claim to be
appointed on such a ground, has to be
considered in accordance with the rules,
regulations or administrative instructions
governing
the
subject,
taking
into
consideration the financial condition of the
family of the deceased. Such a category of
employment itself, is an exception to the
constitutional
provisions
contained
in
Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there
can
be
no
discrimination
in
public
employment. The object of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the
deceased to overcome the sudden financial
crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer
any status upon it. (Vide: Union of India &
Ors. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr., AIR
2012 SC 2294)."

14. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
given in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. Shashank Goswami and
another [(2012) 11 SCC 307] has also
been placed. Relevant part of Para 10 is
being reproduced below:

"Thus,
applicant
cannot
claim
appointment in a particular class/group of
post. Appointments on compassionate ground
have to be made in accordance with the rules,
regulations or administrative instructions
taking into consideration the financial
condition of the family of the deceased."
1 All] Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad & Ors.

439

15. From the above, it is apparent
that relevant Rules on the subject are to be
followed.

16. Governor of U.P. has framed the
Rule i.e. 'U.P. Recruitment of Dependents
of Government Servants dying-in-harness
Rules, 1974' which has been made under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India ('Rules' in short).

17.

Rule
5
provides
that
employment to dependent of deceased be
given subject to following conditions :

(a) Spouse is not employed with
Central Government, State Government
or with any Corporation owned or
controlled
by
State
or
Central
Government.

(b) Applicant is also not employed as
indicated above.

If these conditions are fulfilled,
suitable employment has to be offered.

18. Enquiry into financial status of
the deceased is not contemplated under
Rule 5 of the Rules. Importing any other
condition would amount to reading
something more in the Rules which is
prohibited.

19. Courts cannot add or substract to
what
is
provided
under
the
law.
Employment can be offered to a post
which is not within the purview of U.P.
Public Service Commission. Applicants
are thereby offered Class-IV or Class-III
posts. If somebody is willing to accept the
appointment on these menial posts, his
need visa-vis financial condition can be
well visualized. Applicant might be
having residential house but not getting
any rent or paltry amount as rent. Can it
be said that he does not need regular
income. Even to maintain a house, money
is needed as it has to be repaired, taxes are
to be paid.

20. U.P. Recruitment of Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying
in
Harness Rules, 1974 are complete code
and provide for full mechanism to deal
with all the situations. Malady of sudden
financial crisis on account of death of
bread earner is sought to be remedied by
statutory rules framed in exercise of
powers conferred under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. Rules
display the legislative intent. What is just
should be seen through law. Governor of
State of U.P. has decided to make rules
making provision for appointment on
compassionate ground which should be
read in entirety.

21. Rule 4 of the Rule, 1974 has
given overriding effect to these rules.

22. Rule 5 makes its incumbent upon
the appointing authority to give suitable
employment
if
applicant
fulfills
the
conditions contemplated under Rule 5. State
Government has reserved the right to
condone the delay in case applicant moved
the application beyond five years, taking
into consideration the undue hardship in any
particular case. Appointee under Rules has
been obligated to maintain other members
of the family of the deceased who were
dependent upon him before his death and
are unable to maintain themselves. Failure
to
maintain
them
would
result
in
termination of service.

23. Rule 6 provides for contents of
the application which should be addressed
to the appointing authority and apart from
providing the other particulars i.e. date of
birth, details of other member of family,
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

income details or financial condition of
the family, have also to be mentioned.

24. Rule 7 provides the mechanism
for resolving the dispute if more than one
member of family claim appointment
under the Rules.

25. Rule 8 enables appointing
authority to satisfy itself about the
suitability of candidate to maintain the
minimum
standards
of
work
and
efficiency expected for the post.

26. Rule 8(3) is important which
provides that even if there is no vacancy,
a supernumerary post shall be deemed to
have been created for facilitating such
appointment.

27. From the above, it is apparent
that applicant has to mention in his
application the details of the financial
condition of the family as well as details
of employment and income of all
members of family.

28. Rule 9 is important which
provides that appointing authority shall
satisfy itself about the character of
candidate as well as physical and mental
fitness and in case applicant is male, he
has not more than one wife living and in
case of female candidate, she has not
married a person already having a wife
living.

29. Rule 10 gives power to remove
difficulty to the State Government in
implementation of any provision of these
rules.

30. From the above, it can be culled
out that under Rule 5, appointing
authority has to satisfy itself that spouse
or the applicant himself is not employed
under the Central Government or State
Government or the Corporation owned or
controlled by the Central or State
Government, he fulfills the educational
qualification prescribed for the post and is
otherwise qualified i.e. does not suffer
from any disqualification. Appointing
authority will further satisfy itself that
candidate will be able to maintain the
minimum standards of work and efficiency
and is suitable in all respect, he is physically
and mentally fit and has not more than one
wife living if applicant is male and if
applicant is female, she has not married a
person already having a wife. Except these
requirements, no other requirement is
contemplated under the Rules.

31. Thus, it is apparent that while
applicant is bound to give the details of
financial condition, appointment cannot
be refused on the ground of financial
status. U.P. Rules do not authorize
appointing
authority
to
refuse
the
appointment on the ground that applicant
is financially sound, if he otherwise
fulfills the requirements of Rules 5, 8 and
9. If applicant who lost the bread-earner
of family is willing to work on Class-III
or Class-IV post, his need to such post is
quite manifest.

32. In the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has
held
that
such
deviation
to
the
constitutional provisions contained in
Article 14 & 16 is permissible and Rule is
justifiable and valid. It has rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved.

33. No decision has been placed
before this Court showing that under Rule
5 of U.P. Rules, 1974, appointment can be
refused on the ground of financial status.
The judgments referred by Sri Manish
Kumar pertain to the cases where there is
1 All] Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad & Ors.

441
scheme
or
departmental
instructions
containing such an embargo. U.P. Rules
are silent in this regard and prescribed
limit whereunder appointing authority has
to work. Therefore, appointing authority
while exercising the power under Rule 5
of the U.P. Rules, 1974 cannot refuse the
appointment on the ground of financial
status.

34. Sri Manish Kumar has cited a
recent decision of Full Bench of our Court
reported in UPLBEC 2014 (1) page 589,
Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and
others. Relevant para 29 is being
reproduced below :

"29. We now proceed to formulate
the
principles
which
must
govern
compassionate appointment in pursuance
of Dying in Harness Rules:

(i) A provision for compassionate
appointment is an exception to the
principle that there must be an equality of
opportunity
in
matters
of
public
employment.
The
exception
to
be
constitutionally valid has to be carefully
structured and implemented in order to
confine compassionate appointment to
only those situations which subserve the
basic object and purpose which is sought
to be achieved;

(ii) There is no general or vested
right
to
compassionate
appointment.
Compassionate
appointment
can
be
claimed only where a scheme or rules
provide for such appointment. Where
such
a
provision
is
made
in
an
administrative scheme or statutory rules,
compassionate appointment must fall
strictly within the scheme or, as the case
may be, the rules;

(iii) The object and purpose of
providing compassionate appointment is
to enable the dependent members of the
family of a deceased employee to tide
over the immediate financial crisis caused
by the death of the bread-earner;

(iv) In determining as to whether the
family is in financial crisis, all relevant
aspects must be borne in mind including
the income of the family; its liabilities, the
terminal benefits received by the family;
the age, dependency and marital status of
its members, together with the income
from any other sources of employment;

(v) Where a long lapse of time has
occurred since the date of death of the
deceased
employee,
the
sense
of
immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and this
would be a relevant circumstance which
must weigh with the authorities in
determining as to whether a case for the
grant of compassionate appointment has
been made out;

(vi) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily,
an
application
for
compassionate
appointment must be made within five
years of the date of death of the deceased
employee. The power conferred by the
first proviso is a discretion to relax the
period in a case of undue hardship and for
dealing with the case in a just and
equitable manner;

The burden lies on the applicant,
where there is a delay in making an
application within the period of five years
to establish a case on the basis of reasons
and
a
justification
supported
by
documentary and other evidence. It is for
the State Government after considering all
the facts to take an appropriate decision.
The power to relax is in the nature of an
exception and is conditioned by the
existence of objective considerations to
the satisfaction of the government;
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provisions
for
the
grant
of
compassionate
appointment
do
not
constitute a reservation of a post in favour
of a member of the family of the deceased
employee. Hence, there is no general right
which can be asserted to the effect that a
member of the family who was a minor at
the time of death would be entitled to
claim compassionate appointment upon
attaining majority. Where the rules
provide for a period of time within which
an application has to be made, the
operation of the rule is not suspended
during the minority of a member of the
family."

35. There is one more aspect which
very often dithers the appointing authority
while making appointment under these
rules. Very often Appointing Authority
tends to offer appointment on Class IV
post even when applicant is eligible to be
appointed on Class III post.

36. It is true that applicant cannot
insist that a particular post be given to
him but rules prescribed that suitable
employment on the post has to be offered.

37. Rule 5 further says that 'suitable
employment in government service on the
post' has to be given. This post should not
be within the purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission but candidate has to
have educational qualification prescribed
for the post.

38. State Government is supposed to
be a model employer and therefore it is
expected that government and it's officers
will work strictly in accordance with
rules.

39. If applicant is qualified for being
appointed on Class-III post, then he
should not be offered appointment on
Class-IV post merely on the ground that
his father was a Class-IV/III employee.
Everyone has a right to augment his
income and everyone has a right to give
better education to his children. Every
educated child has a right to be
considered for a post commensurate with
his qualification. Any deviation from the
rules is not permissible. If applicant is
qualified to be appointed on Class-III
post, appointing authority should offer
him suitable employment. If he is
qualified to be appointed as Class-IV
employee,
he
should
be
offered
appointment on Class-IV post. This
suitability has to be judged in the light of
qualifications of the applicant vis a vis
educational qualifications prescribed for
the post. Appointing authority acts
contrary to the rules if he deliberately
offers a lower post i.e. Class-IV post
although
applicant
is
eligible
for
appointment on Class-III post.

40. Unavailability of post cannot be
a ground to refuse appointment on Class
III if applicant is otherwise eligible.
Financial status also can not be a relevant
consideration while considering case for
appointment on Class III.

41. In order to mitigate the sufferings
of dependents, State Government has
directed to relax the computer knowledge for
a period of one year so that immediately on
death employment can be provided. This
shows the concern of the State Government
which helps in inferring the intent of
legislature.

42. It is clarified that applicant has
no right to choose the particular post but
appointing authority should offer suitable
employment and therefore, these two
1 All] Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad & Ors.

443
things should not be mixed or confused.
Appointing authority has been given
discretion to judge the suitability. This
discretion is not to be exercised on
caprice or whims but in a judicious
manner and must be informed of reasons.
Appointing authority should give reasons
for not offering the appointment, claimed
by the applicant. It is once again clarified
that applicant has no right to choose the
post and appointing authority is not bound
to offer the post claimed by applicant but
refusal must accompany the reasons for
finding him non suitable.

43. It is not at all in the interest of
administration that a qualified person is
appointed on Class IV post rather it would
serve the administration better if eligible
and qualified person is given the
appropriate task. There is no law that
ward of Class IV employee should always
be employed on Class IV Post, even if he
is well qualified for Class III post.

44. If under qualified person claims
appointment on Class IV post, it can be
declined by saying that he is not eligible, but
where applicant is eligible for appointment
on Class III post, then there has to be a strong
reason for declining the same and reason
must form part of the order. In order to
eliminate element of arbitrariness, reasons
for finding applicant non suitable for a
particular job have to be given.

45. While it is true that rule 8 & 9 do
not contemplate any inquiry into the
financial status but appointing authority
can definitely examine the correctness of
the application in the light of Rule 6
which requires details of income of the
family. While appointment cannot be
refused on the ground of financial status,
this can be a relevant criterion for offering
a suitable employment. In this manner, all
the rules can be read harmoniously.

46. Offering Class IV job to
dependent merely because deceased was
Class III or IV employee militates against
very mandate contained in Article 38 of
the Constitution of India and is an affront
to 'dignity' of individual emphasized in
preamble thereof.

47. When no time is prescribed,
legislative intent is to be taken into
account which is to provide immediate
financial support to the family of
deceased. The intention of legislature is
manifest, as such, a prompt exercise is
expected from the appointing authority. In
the absence of any specific mention, three
months time can be the reasonable time to
pass orders on the application for
compassionate appointment.

48. It has been observed in the case
of Priyanka Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and
another [Writ petition No. 6168 of
2009(SS)] and Sunil Kumar Vs. District
& Sessions Judge Balrampur and others
[Writ Petition No. 2975 of 2007 (SS)]
relying upon various decisions of Hon'ble
Apex Court that three months is a
reasonable
time
when
no
time
is
prescribed.

49. From the above, following
principles
can
be
deduced
on
interpretation of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974:

(a) Application should be disposed of
within three months from the date
dependent applies for a job. Under Rules,
no time limit is prescribed but intent of
the rule is to provide immediate relief to
the bereaved family to meet immediate
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

financial crisis [Shiv Kumar Dubey
(supra)]. In this background, Appropriate
Authority is supposed to dispose of such
applications within a shortest possible
time. In any case, application should not
be kept pending for more than three
months.

(b) Appointment under the Rules
cannot be refused merely on the ground
that financial status of the applicant is
sound. Nor payment of retiral benefits at
the time of death, furnishes any ground
for refusal.

(c) Non availability of posts is no
ground to refuse appointment.

(d) Appointment on Class III post
cannot be refused merely on the ground
that deceased was Class III/IV employee.

(e) Appointment has to be offered
according to qualification and suitability
of candidate and the applicant should be
given an appointment commensurate
therewith. If appointing authority does not
give appointment on the post claimed by
applicant
because
of
non-suitability,
reasons have to be recorded by the
appointing authority.

(f) Dependent of deceased has no
right to claim particular position or place
and it is in the discretion of the appointing
authority
to
pass
appropriate
order
warranted in the facts and circumstances
of the case.

50. In the instant case, although
District Judge was fully justified in
calling for details of financial status, but
since time prescribed for furnishing
details of property had not expired,
rejection of the application before expiry
of
the
period
was
not
correct.
Consequently, finding given by District
Judge regarding non-submission of details
of properties is uncalled for.

51. From the affidavit filed by
Meera
Agrawal,
Prashant
Agrawal,
Prabhat Agrawal and Smt. Harpyari Devi,
petitioner's financial status and need is
quite apparent but it is to be seen by
District Judge.

52. In view of above, impugned
order cannot be sustained and writ
petition deserves to be allowed.

53. Writ petition is allowed. Order
dated 28.09.2013 is quashed. District
Judge is directed to pass fresh order in
accordance with law and observations
made herein above within three weeks.

54. Copy of the order be sent to
Principal
Secretary,
appointment/
personnel with direction to circulate it
among various department of State
Government for compliance.

55. Record be sent back.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE KALIMULLAH KHAN, J.

Government Appeal No. 2869 of 1984

The State of U.P.................. .. Appellant
Versus
Nawab.....................Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Tripathi (A.G.A.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.R.S. Pal

Cr.P.C.-Section-378-Govt. Appeal against
acquittal-offence under section 392, 397,