# Proteins Ltd v. Food Corporation of

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 23
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/proteins-ltd-v-food-corporation-of-39604
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1All] Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others V. State of U.P. & others
23
12. In our opinion, the stand taken
by the respondent in the counter affidavit
is wholly misconceived and not valid.
When a sale is made to a Government
department in our opinion form III-D has
to be issued to the selling dealer in view
of section 3 G. This is a statutory duty and
in our opinion the ratio of the decisions in
M/s Tracto Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(Supra), M/s G.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and M/s Garg Plastics (supra) and
M/s R.S. Huma Pipes (supra) squarely
apply to the facts of the present case also.

13. No doubt section 3-G does not
expressly mention that form III-D has to
be issued by the government department
to the seller, but in our opinion this duty is
clearly implied by section 3-G. In modern
Proteins Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of
India, 1983 (52) S.T.C. the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that even though
there is no express provision imposing a
statutory
obligation
upon
the
Food
Corporation to issue form C there is an
implied obligation to issue such forms.
The Court held 'when the Act envisages
that only a tax of 4% is leviable in the
case of inter State Sales and not 10%
under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, and
entitles the registered dealer to pay this
concessional rate of tax and prescribes the
mode by which he can claim the
concessional rate, it could not have been
the intention of the legislature to defeat
this provision at the sweet will and
pleasure of the purchaser of the goods.'
We are in respectful agreement with this
decision.
14. Similarly, in Hirdey Narain vs.
I.T.O. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 33 the Supreme
Court observed; If a statute invests a
public officer with authority to do an act
in a specified set of circumstances, it is
imperative upon him to exercise his
authority in a manner appropriate to the
case when a party interested and having a
right to apply moves in that behalf and
circumstances for exercise of authority
are shown to exist. Even if the words used
in the statute are prima facie enabling the
Courts will readily infer a duty to exercise
power which is invested in aid of
enforcement of a right- public or private-
of a citizen'. The Supreme Court relied on
the decision of the House of Lords in
Julius vs. Bishop of oxford (1980) 5 A.C.
214 for the proposition that a power is
often coupled with an implied duty, and
such
duty
can
be enforced by a
mandamus. This view has also been taken
by the Supreme Court in Comptroller and
Auditor General of India vs. K.S.
Jagannathan, AIR 1997 SC 537.
15. Hence in our opinion section 3G imposes a duty on the government
departments to issue form III-D to the
seller whenever sales are made to it.

16. The writ petition is hence
allowed and a mandamus is issued to the
respondents 3 to 5 to issue forms III-D to
the petitioner for the relevant assessment
years as prayed for within one month of
production of a certified copy of this
order before the authority concerned.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

.P 0HHQDNVKL $JDUZDO
DQG 2WKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6UL 936ULYDVWDYD
6UL .' 7LZDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$
6UL 6. .DXWLO\D
6UL 6DPLW *RSDO
6UL *6 &KDWXUYHGL

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
TXDVKLQJ
RI
),5
±
ZKHUH
WKH
DOOHJDWLRQV LQ WKH ),5 WDNHQ DW WKH IDFH
9DOXH DQG DFFHSWHG LQ HQWLUHW\ GR QRW
FRQVWLWXWH DQ\ FRJQL]DEOH RIIHQFH WKH
),5 DQG WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKHUHRQ PD\
EH
TXDVKHG
8SRQ
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
RI
UHOHYDQW
PDWHULDOV
LI
WKH
&RXUW
LV
VDWLVILHG DQG QR RIIHQFH LV GLVFORVHG LW
ZLOO EH WKH GXW\ RI &RXUW WR LQWHUIHUH ZLWK
WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ VR WKDW DOOHJHG DFFXVHG
PD\ QRW EH XQQHFHVVDULO\ VXEMHFWHG WR
KDUDVVPHQW DQG KXPLOLDWLRQ
7KH
6WDWH
*RYW
KDV
WKH
SRZHU
WKH
UHVFLQG WKH RUGHU E\ ZKLFK LQYHVWLJDWLRQ
PD\
KDYH
EHHQ
HQWUXVWHG
WR
WKH
&%&,'
DQG VXFK D SRZHU FDQ EH
H[HUFLVHG
DW
DQ\
VXEVHTXHQW
VWDWH ́
+HOG 3DUD
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH SROLFH ZLOO QRW DUUHVW VLPSO\ EHFDXVH
),5
KDV
EHHQ
ORGJHG
DJDLQVW
SHWLWLRQHUV RI ZULW SHWLWLRQ QR RI
 DQG RI DQG SROLFH ZLOO
UHVRUW
WR
WKH
SRZHU
RI
DUUHVW
ZKHQ
DOOHJDWLRQV PDGH LQ WKH ),5 DUH IRXQG
JHQXLQH RU FUHGLEOH HYLGHQFHPDWHULDO LV
FROOHFWHG DJDLQVW SHWLWLRQHUV UHJDUGLQJ
FRPPLVVLRQ RI RIIHQFH

By the Court

1. Common questions of law and
facts are involved in above writ petitions
and therefore, all the above writ petitions
are taken up together for disposal for
which the learned counsel for the parties
have no objection.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rice
to above writ petitions are as below:

Late Karmendra Narain Agarwal
husband of Smt. Shashi Agarwal and
father of Km. Meenakshi Agarwal and
Manoj Narain Agarwal owned some
property known as Prag Agricultural
Farm Gokul Nagar, P.S. Kichha, District
Udham Singh Nagar. D.S. Sirohi, R.K.
Yadav, Hanspal and Munna Lal were
employees of Late Kamrendra Narain
Agarwal, who managed the property
owned by him. Km. Meenakshi Agarwal
also owned a theatre known as Meenakshi
Theatre, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh. On the
death of Karmendra Narain Agarwal
some dispute regarding property of the
said Farm arose between widow on one
side and son and daughter on the other
side. Civil and revenue litigations were
also going on between the a parties
including testamentary suits, which are
pending in various Courts.

3. On 4.11.1999 at about 9.30 P.M.,
R.K. Yadav along with 40 more persons
allegedly raided the house of Km.
Meenakshi Agarwal Quarrel took place
and it is alleged that R.K. Yadav
sustained injuries in it. Km. Meenakshi
Agarwal lodged report of the said
occurrence on said date at 10.30 P.M. at
P.S. Kichha, district Udham Singh Nagar,
which was registered at case crime no.
960 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 140,
452,323, 427, 506, 307 and 326 I.P.C.
Manoj Narain Agarwal also lodged report
of the said occurrence on 5.11.1999 at
2.10 P.M. at P.S. Kichcha against six
person including Meenakshi Agarwal,
D.S. Sirohi, R.K. Yadav, Hanspal and
Munna Lal at P.S. Kichcha, on the basis
of which a cross case at crime no. 960-A
1All] Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others V. State of U.P. & others
25
of 1999 under Sections 147,148,149,307,
504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered. Both
the cases were being investigated by the
local police and the police submitted
charge sheet in case crime no. 960 of
1999 against 41 persons. However, the
police
submitted
final
report
on
29311.1999 in cross case crime no. 960-A
of 1999, which was sent to Senior
Prosecuting Officer for scrutiny.

4. In the meantime, Manoj Narain
Agarwal filed writ petition no. 7230
before
this
court
for
transfer
of
investigation of case crime no. 960 of
1999
and
960-A
of
1999
from
Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh
Nagar to any other agency not under his
control as fair and impartial investigation
was not possible by the local police. The
above writ petition was finally disposed
of on 1.12.1999 by a Division Bench of
this Court with the observation that it
would be proper if the matter is looked
into by the D.I.G. (Kumaun Region),
Udham Singh Nagar, Nainital, who will
ensure that fair and impartial investigation
of the cross cases is conducted by the
agency other than named above.

5. In view of above order dated
1.12.1999 the final report submitted in
case crime no. 960-A of 1999 was
returned back and it was directed that the
matter be investigated afresh by another
officer
and
the
matter
is
being
investigated
by
another
officer.
Apprehending heer arrest Km. Meenakshi
Agarwal, D.S. Sirohi, R.K. Yadav,
Hanspal and Munna Lal filed writ petition
no. 310 of 2000 for issue of a writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorati
quashing the F.I.R. in case crime no. 960A OF 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kichha,
District Udham Singh Nagar with interim
prayer for staying their arrest in the said
case mainly on the ground that the police
had submitted final report in the said case
and there was no occasion for its
reinvestigation. In the said writ petition
no. 310 of 2000 filed by Km. Meenakshi
Agarwal and others this Court, vide order
dated
19.1.2000
issued
notice
to
respondent no. 3 for filing counteraffidavit and directed the learned A.G.A.
to file counter-affidavit on behalf of
respondents no. 1 and 2 and in the
meantime it was directed that though the
investigation of the case shall go on, the
arrest of the petitioners in case crime no.
960-A of 1999 shall remain stayed. Smt.
Shashi Agarwal also filed writ petition no.
1741 of 2000 for issue of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the First Information Report in
case crime no. 960-A of 1999 lodged
against her with an interim prayer for
staying her arrest in the said case, which
was ordered to be connected with writ
petition no. 310 of 2000.

6. Thereafter, Km. Meenakshi
Agarwal moved an application to the
Chief Secretary, U.P. and also to Director
General
Police,
U.P.
Praying
that
investigation of case crime no. 960-A of
1999 be directed to be investigated by
C.B.C.I.D. Since no order was passed on
her above application and she was
apprehending that local police and the
D.I.G.
(Kumaun
Range) would not
investigate the case fairly and properly as
they were under influence of local
M..L.A., she filed writ petition no. 1743
of 2000 for issue of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the State of U.P. to direct
investigation of case crime no. 960-A of
1999 P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
Nagar Nainital by C.B.C.I.D. The said
writ petition was also directed to be
connected with writ petition. 310 of 2000.

7. On the application of Km.
Meenakshi
Agarwal
dated
3.4.2000
praying that the matter may be directed to
be investigated by C.B.C.I.D., the State
Government, vide order dated 6.4.2000
directed the case crime no. 960-A of
1999,P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh
Nagar (Nainital) to be investigated by
C.B.C.I.D..
Thereafter,
the
State
Government reconsidered the order dated
6.4.2000 and vide order dated 11.5.2000
transferred
the
investigation
from
C.B.C.I.D. to local police by recalling
order
dated
6.4.2000
and
therefore
investigation was handed over from
C.B.C.I.D. to local police again. In
pursuance of the order dated 19.5.2000
local police took up the matter and started
investigation, Smt. Shashi Agarwal filed
writ petition no. 2996 of 2000 for issue of
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
11.5.2000 passed by the State of U.P. and
a
writ
of mandamus directing the
C.B.C.I.D., to investigate the case and
submit report in case crime no. 960-A of
1999. In the said writ petition notices
were issued and in the meantime, the
arrest of petitioner (Smt. Shashi Agarwal)
was stayed in case crime no. 960-A of
1999 till the next date of listing or until
submission of charge sheet, which so
ever. was earlier, vide order dated
4.7.2000.
Thereafter,
Manoj
Narain
Agarwal filed another writ petition no.
3848 of 2000 challenging the order dated
19.5.2000 for issue of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents of said writ
petition, the State of U.P., Secretary
Home Department, U.P. Lucknow and
D.I.G. Police Kumaun range not to
interfere
in
the
smooth
and
fair
investigation being conducted under the
direction of this Court by order dated
1.12.1999 except in accordance with law
or prior permission of the Court and
directing the D.I.G. Police Kumaun range
(respondent no. 4) to get the investigation
concluded within stipulated period as
deemed fit and proper by this Court
mainly on the ground that he came to
know that by order dated 5.6.2000 the
Under Secretary Home has directed that
the investigation be done jointly by the
C.B.C.I.D. and local police and on the
application of D.I.G. Kumaun range
respondent no. 4 had requested State
Government to form a team of C.I.D.
officers to help the local police in the
investigation of the two cases, case crime
no. 960 of 1999 and 960-A of 1999 and
Km. Meenakshi Agarwal was trying to
get the investigation transferred in spite of
the specific order of this Court dated
1.12.1999 by concealing the fact and
during pendency of writ petition no. 1743
being filed for the same prayer

8. Counter -affidavits and rejoinderaffidavits were filed by the parties,

9. We have heard Sri G.S.
Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of Manoj Narain Agarwal and
Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Km. Meenakshi
Agarwal and Smt. Shashi Agarwal at
great length and have perused the record.

10. The first question, which crops
up for determination is whether the F.I.R.
lodged in case crime no. 960-A of 1999 is
liable to be quashed?
1All] Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others V. State of U.P. & others
27
11. A perusal of F.I.R. in case crime
no. 960-A of a1999 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S.
Kichha, district Udham Singh Nagar
shows that it discloses commission of
cognizable offence. The contention of Sri
V.P. Srivastava, Advocate was that the
above F.I.R. was a counter blast of case
crime no. 960 of 1999 lodged by Km.
Meenakshi Agarwal against Manoj Narain
Agarwal
and
others
and
no
such
occurrence had taken place and that the
above F.I.R. was malafide.

12. The scope of interference by this
Court
either
in
the
exercise
of
extraordinary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution or its inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the
investigation of a cognizable offence has
been examined in a number of decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as
of different High Court and this Court in
Full Bench decision in Satya Pal & others
vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (40)
ACC 75, and it was held by the Full
Bench that it has been consistently held
that (where the allegations in the F.I.R.
taken at the face value and accepted in
entirety do not constitute any cognizable
offence the F.I.R. and the investigation
thereon may be quashed.) It also quoted
the guide lines by way of illustrations
given by Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana & others vs. Chaudhary
Bhajan Lal & others, 1991 (28) ACC,III
(SC) and other cases of the Apex Court
and concluded that on the basis of the
allegations made in the F.I.R. and on a
consideration of the relevant materials if
the Court is satisfied that an offence is
disclosed, the Court normally will not
interfere with the investigation unless
there is strong grounds or compelling
reasons requiring interference in the
interest
of
justice.
However,
(upon
consideration of relevant materials if the
Court is satisfied and no offence is
disclosed, it will be the duty of Court to
interfere with the investigation so that
alleged accused may not be unnecessarily
subjected to harassment and humiliation).

13. Perusal of F.I.R. of case crime
no. 960-A of 1999 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
(Annexure no. 3 to writ petition no. 1741
of 2000) shows that there is specific
allegation that on 4.11.1999 at about 8
P.M. threats was extended to the
complainant on his mobile phone and
when the complainant reached near the
gate
of
Farm
on
his
Safari
Car
indiscriminate firing was made on him
and he sustained pellet injury and
thereafter his vehicle was dis-balanced
and persons of Meenakshi Agarwal
caused injuries on him. Thus, the above
F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable
offences. Whether such occurrence took
place or not is to be decided by the Trial
Court concerned on the basis of evidence
of the parties. Truthfulness of the
allegations and the establishment of the
guilt can only take place when the trial
proceeds without any interruption. As
held by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji
Kalpatri and others, 1996 SCC (Crl.) 150,
at the stage of quashing a first information
report or complaint the High Court is not
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to
the
probability or reliability or
genuineness of the allegations made
therein. If the ingredients which establish
the commission of offence or misconduct
exist then, the prosecution cannot fail
merely because there was an animus of
the complainant or the prosecution against
the accused. Allegations of mala fides
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
may be relevant while judging the
correctness of the allegation or while
examining the evidence. But the mere fact
that the complainant is guilty of mala
fides, would be no ground for quashing
the prosecution. It was further held by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar
vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996 SCC (Cri)
628 that at the initial stage, the High
Court should not sift or appreciate the
evidence and come to the conclusion that
no prima facie case is made out.

14. As held above the F.I.R.
discloses
commission
of
cognizable
offence, we are of the view that there is
no ground for quashing the F.I.R. in case
crime no.960-A of 1999.

15. A prayer has also been sought in
writ petition no. 310 of 2000 and 1741 of
2000 for staying arrest of the petitioner in
case crime no.960-A of 1999. The
question of arrest in case the Court does
not find any ground for quashing the
F.I.R. has also been considered in Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Satya Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra) and it was held in
paragraph 40 as below:-

16. "Therefore, in appropriate cases
if this Court is convinced that the power
of arrest will be exercised wrongly or
malafidely or in violation of Section 41
(1) (a) of the Code, writ of mandamus can
be issued restraining the police from
misusing its legal power. However, the
order staying arrest may be granted
sparingly in exceptional cases and with
circumspection, that too in the rarest of
rare cases keeping in mind that any relief,
interim or final during investigation
which has the tendency to slow or
otherwise
hamper
the
investigation,
should not be granted. Our opinion further
gains support from a recent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of M/S Pepsi
Foods
Ltd.
Vs
Special
Judicial
Magistrate, , 1998 (36) ACC 20 CSC,
wherein while dealing with the power and
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution and Section 482
of the Code, it has been observed as
Follows:-

17. "The power conferred on the
High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution and under Section 482 of
the Code have no limits but more the
power more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers."

18. Since, the F.I.R. discloses
commission of cognizable offence and the
matter requires investigation and F.I.R. is
not liable to be quashed, the arrest being
part of investigation cannot be stayed Sri
V.P. Srivastava further contended that
none of the requirements of Section 173
(2) Cr.P.C. require that an accused must
be arrested during investigation, but we
find no force in the above contention as
Section 170 Cr.P.C. clearly says that if,
upon an investigation under this Chapter,
it appears to the officer in charge of the
police station that there is sufficient
evidence
or
reasonable
ground
as
aforesaid, such officer shall forward the
accused under custody to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the
offence upon a police report and to try the
accused or commit him for trial, or, if the
offence is bailable and the accused is able
to give security, shall take security from
him for his appearance before such
Magistrate on a day fixed and for his
attendance from day to day before such
Magistrate
until
otherwise
directed.
Moreover,
Section
41
Cr.P.C.
also
1All] Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others V. State of U.P. & others
29
empowers any police officer to arrest
without an order from a Magistrate and
without a warrant, any person who has
been
concerned
in
any
cognizable
offence, or against whom a reasonable
complaint has been made, or credible
information has been received, or a
reasonable suspicion exists, of his having
been so concerned.

19. Sri V.P. Srivastava further
placed reliance on paragraph 41 of the
observation of Full Bench in Satya Pal's
case (supra). But we find that there is
nothing
on
record
to
show
that
contingencies
envisaged
in
the
said
paragraph are existing in this case.

20. The next point urged by Sri V.P.
Srivastava, was that once the State
Government
had
transferred
the
investigation of the case from local police
to C.B.C.I..D. it cannot recall the said
order and re transfer the investigation to
local police and therefore, order dated
11.5.2000 passed by State Government is
liable to be quashed. He further contended
that the Division Bench case of this Court
in Bhopal and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 1997 (34) ACC,371 does not
appear good law in view of Apex Court
decision in Munir Alam vs. Union o f
India and others, 1999 (39) ACC<230. On
the other hand Sri G.S. Chaturvedi
contended that if the State Government
has power to transfer investigation from
local police to C.B.C.I.D. it has power to
recall or rescind the said order in view of
Section 21 of U.P. General Clauses Act
and that the decision of Apex Court in
Munir
Alam's
case
(supra)
is
distinguishable on the facts of the case.

21. In the case of Bhopal and others
vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) one
Reghubir was murdered in the evening of
5.10.1994 and the F.I.R. of the incident
was lodged by one Rajpal Singh alleging
that the applicants had committed his
murder by assaulting him with knives. A
case was registered as crime no. 129/94
under Section 302 IPC at P.S. Doghat
district
Meerut
against
all
three
applicants. The local police investated the
matter and aster investigation submitted a
charge-sheet dated 25.11.1994 in the
Court of C.J.M., Meerut. It appears that
before
the
charge
sheet
had
been
submitted by the local police, the State
Government had passed an order directing
that the case shall be investigated by
C.B.C.I.D. Subsequently, the State Govt.
passed an order on 4.8.1995 by which the
earlier order directing investigation by
C.B.C.I.D. was rescinded and it was
further provided that the local police shall
investigate the case. The said order was
challenged in the Writ Petition. It was
contended that once the State Government
passes
an
order
transferring
the
investigation to C.B.C.I.D., it should not
re transfer the same back to local police.
The
Division
Bench
quoting
and
considering
the
notification
of
the
Government
no.
4173/c/vi-e-e27P/94
dated 15.9.1995 held as below:-

22. "There is no such prohibition
under any statute nor there is any such
rule, notification or order that once the
State Govt. has transferred investigation
from local police to C.B.C.I.D., it cannot
recall or rescind the said order and entrust
the investigation back to the local police.
In fact, such a power is possessed by the
State Govt. in view of Section 21 of U.P.
General Clauses Act which provides that
where by any Uttar Pradesh Act a power
to issue statutory instrument is conferred,
then that power includes a power,
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
exercisable in the like manner and subject
to the like sanction and condition (if any)
to add, amend, vary or rescind any
statutory instrument so issued. In view
Section 4 (42-B), any notification or order
would
be
a
statutory
instrument.
Therefore the State Govt. has the power to
rescind the order by which investigation
may have been entrusted to the C.B.C.I.D.
and such a power can be exercised at any
subsequent state."

23. With the above observation the
writ petition was dismissed.

24. In the case of Munir Alam vs.
Union of India (supra) relied on by Sri
V.P. Srivastava, on the night intervening
on 1st and 2nd October, 1996 in the
vicinity of the lodge of Vice Chancellor,
Aligarh Muslim University firing took
place in which Nadim Alam, the 20 year
old sun of the petitioner was killed. A
formal report was filed by respondent No.
3 (Proctor of the University) on 2nd
October, 1996 which was incomplete and
therefore,
an
additional
report
in
continuation of the earlier report was also
filed. The local police on investigation
submitted final report in the committal
Court. The petitioner in writ petition
before the Apex Court challenged the
submission of final report on the ground
that the investigation into the incident of
firing was conducted in a wholly slipshod and a biased manner. The Petitioner
therefore, interalia prayed in the petition
that a fair investigation be got conducted
into the incident through the C.B.I. and to
punish the guilty and award exemplary
damages to the family of the deceased.
The Apex Court besides issuing notices to
opposite parties also directed Sessions
Judge Aligarh to inquire into the matter
himself or to get it inquired by a
competent officer, not below the rank of
an Additional Sessions Judge and to
submit the report of inquiry to the Court
within two months from the date of
communication of order, The matter was
inquired by IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Aligarh and report was
submitted. In the meantime, the Senior
Superintendent of Police and District
Magistrate,
Aligarh
appointed
Chief
Development Officer, Aligarh and the
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh (Rural
Area) as Inquiry Officers to inquire into
the matter, who also submitted report,
which was produced before the Apex
Court. It was held by the Apex Court that
since the Court was seized of the matter
and had required the Additional District
and sessions Judge to hold an inquiry,
their Lordships fail to understand how the
State Government could have, after the
report of the Additional District and
Sessions judge was submitted to the
Court, directed an enquiry by the two
Officers of the State Government. On the
basis of report of IVth Additional District
and Sessions Judge the Court considered
it necessary with a view to arrive at the
truth, that the entire matter be got
investigated through the Central Bureau
of Investigation (C.B.I.). Accordingly,
Director, C.B.I. was directed to hold an
enquiry/investigation into the incident
which occurred during the intervening
night of 1st and 2nd October, 1996 and into
the related matters.

25. The facts of the above case are
thus distinguishable from the facts of the
present case. In the said case, the Apex
Court was seized of the matter and had
directed the Sessions Judge, Aligarh to
hold enquiry and submit report. No. such
contingency existed in the instant case
1All] Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others V. State of U.P. & others
31
and facts of instant case are fully covered
with the facts of Bhopal's case (supra).

26. Moreover, in the above case, the
complainant himself had challenged the
investigation by the local police. It has
further been held in Bhopal's case that a
case where a complainant or victim comes
to the Court and makes a grievance that
the local police is not investigating the
crime fairly stands on entirely different
footing. In such a case the Court may
issue a direction for investigation by
C.B.C.I.D. or some other impartial agency
so that the crime is properly investigated
and the confidence of the public at large is
restored. In the instant case nothing has
been shown that the case was complicated
one or was of a public interest and
therefore,
investigation
be
done
by
C.B.C.I.D.

27. Moreover, the order of the State
Government dated 11.5.2000 shows that
the
transfer
of
investigation
from
C.B.C.I.D. to local police was ordered in
pursuance of the order of this Court dated
1.12.1999 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7230 of 1999, which directed
that
D.I.G.
(Kumaun
Region) shall
personally look into the matter and will
ensure that fair and impartial investigation
of the cross cases is conducted. The order
dated 1.12.1999 of this Court passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7230 of
1999 shows that the Court had directed
D.I.G. (Kumaun Region), Udham Singh
Nagar, Nainital to ensure that fair and
impartial investigation of the cross cases
is conducted by the agency other than
named above. This shows that the Court
meant that the investigation will be
looked into by the D.I.G. (Kumaun
Region) i.e. the Investigating Agency
under his control. The above order,
therefore, cannot be interpreted that the
investigation
was
directed
to
be
conducted
by
C.B.C.I.D.
as
the
C.B.C.I.D. is not under the control of
D.I.G.

28. Thus, we find that there is no
ground for interference with the order
dated 11.5.2000 passed by the State
Government.

29. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior
Advocate lastly contended that the D.I.G.
(Kumaun Region) had sent a letter to
Principal
Secretary
Home,
U.P.
Government, Lucknow dated 25.5.2000
that a team of C.I.D. officers be formed to
help in the investigation by the local
police, which means that the C.B.C.I.D.
would interfere in the investigation by
local police. Having gone through the
above letter, annexure-13 to the counteraffidavit filed in writ petition no. 3848 of
2000 we find that there is no force in the
above contention as the local police had
simply sought assistance of a team of
officers of C.I.D. in the investigation and
it does not mean that C.B.C.I.D. will
conduct investigation.

30. In view of our above discussions
and observations we are of the view that
the writ petitions have no force. However,
it should be made clear that the police will
not arrest simply because F.I.R. has been
lodged against petitioners of writ petition
no. 310 of 2000 and 1741 of 2000 and
police will resort to the power of arrest
when allegations made in the F.I.R. are
found
genuine
or
credible
evidence/material
is
collected against
petitioners
regarding
commission
of
offence.
We
hope
and
trust
that
Investigation Agency shall act fairly and
honestly and will take coercive steps
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
against the petitioners only after verifying
the above allegations made against the
petitioners.

31. With these observations writ
petitions no. 310 of 2000, 1741 of 2000
1743 of 2000 & 2996 of 2000 and 3848 of
2000 are dismissed.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

)LUVW $SSHDO 1R RI

+DUEDQV
«&ODLPDQW$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL 5DYL .DQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL %' 0DQGK\DQ

6HFWLRQ DQG 3URYLVR RI VHFWLRQ RI
/DQG $FTXLVLWLRQ $FW 7KH SURYLVLRQ RI
6HFWLRQ RI WKH /DQG $FTXLVLWLRQ $FW
ZDV DPHQGHG DV WR SHUPLW WKH FODLPDQW
WR UDLVH WKH GLVSXWH EHIRUH WKH UHIHUHQFH
&RXUW DV WR WKH DPRXQW LUUHVSHFWLYH RI
WKH
FODLP
KH
KDG
PDGH
EHIRUH
WKH
&ROOHFWRU DQG HYHQ LI KH KDG QRW PDGH
VXFK FODLP KH FDQ PDNH LW EHIRUH WKH
UHIHUHQFH &RXUW
7KH SURYLVR WR 6HFWLRQ RI WKH $FW
OHDYHV QR GLVFUHWLRQ WR WKH &RXUW WR
DZDUG LQWHUHVW OHVV WKHQ SHU DQQXP
7KH DSSHOODQW LV WKHUHIRUH HQWLWOHG WR
LQWHUHVW DW WKH UDWH RI RQ WKH DPRXQW
GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH &RXUW
+HOG 3DUD
6HFWLRQ RI WKH XQ DPHQGHG $FW
VSHFLILFDOO\ SURYLGHG WKDW WKH &RXUW VKDOO
QRW
DZDUG WKH DPRXQW LQ H[FHVV VR
FODLPHG
EXW
WKLV
SURYLVLRQ
KDV
EHHQ
GHOHWHG DQG LW ZLOO QRW EH IDLU WR SXW
VLPLODU UHVWULFWLRQ RQ WKH FODLP PDGH E\
D
SHUVRQ
EHIRUH
WKH
&RXUW
XQGHU
UHIHUHQFH XQGHU 6HFWLRQ RI WKH $FW
7KH VHFRQG UHDVRQ LV WKDW WKH SURFHHGLQJ
EHIRUH WKH UHIHUHQFH &RXUW XQGHU 6HFWLRQ
 RI WKH $FW LV WUHDWHG DV DQ RULJLQDO
SURFHHGLQJ
IRU
WKH
SXUSRVH
RI
GHWHUPLQLQJ PDUNHW YDOXH DIUHVK RQ WKH
EDVLV RI WKH PDWHULDO SURGXFHG EHIRUH LW

By the Court

1. This appeal is directed against the
Award dated 30th May 1987 passed by the
Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No. 40 of 1979.

2. Briefly stand the facts are that for
establishing
market
yard for Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiit at Shamli, District
Muzaffarnagar, the State Government
issued notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) on 6.11.1975. The plots of
the appellant unmbered as 282M, 284M,
285 and 286 total area 5 Bigha 11
Biswansis were sought to be acquired.
This notification was followed by another
notification under Section 6 of the Act.
The State Government took possession of
the land in question from the appellant on
16.1.1976. Notices under Section 9 of the
Act were issued requiring the persons
interested in the land forming subject
matter of the declaration to submit their
claims for compensation for acquisition of
their land. The appellant submitted the
claim petition before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and he made an
Award
on
18.10.1977
awarding
compensation at Rs. 10,303.05 per bigha
and solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.