# Ram Babu and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 848
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2853 of 1982
- **Bench:** Mrs.) Saroj Bala, B.N. Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-babu-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-41244
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indain Penal Code Section 34, 302Punishment of life imprisonment-eye
witness stated in examination -in -chiefapplicant was armed with lathi-but
nothing whisper about carrying lathi
3 All] Ram Babu and others V. State of U.P.
849
while chasing them-no inference can be
drawn that the appellant with intention
to cause death joined the co-accusedheld-prosecution failed to prove the
common intention of appellant to kill the
deceased-appeal allowed-sentence set
aside.

Held: Para 23

In the instant case there is no evidence
that the appellant Ram Autar shared
common intention with co-accused, the
main
assailants.
There
is
every
possibility
of
the
witnesses
falsely
implicating the appellant alongwith main
assailants
with
the
commission
of
offence. The testimony of eye witnesses
that the appellant alongwith co-accused
pursued them cannot be accepted. It is
remarkable to observe that in the first
part of examination-in-chief the eye
witnesses stated that the appellants
came armed with lathi but there is
omission in-the latter part that the
appellant was carrying a lathi while
chasing them. There is no evidence to
draw an inference that the co-accused
went to the tube-well with the intention
to cause death and such intention was
known to the appellant. Looking to the
involvement of uncle of first informant
and of witness Rajendra (P.W.6) in the
murder of two brothers of appellant in
two separate incidents the possibility of
his false implication cannot be ruled out.
Thus, we conclude that the prosecution
has failed to prove beyond all reasonable
doubt that the appellant Ram Autar
shared
common
intention
with
coaccused to kill the deceased.
Case law discussed:
2003 (47) ACC 388 (SC); 1999 Cri.L.J. 1334
(SC); 2001(42) ACC 770 (SC); 2001 (4) SCC
193; 1999 (8) SCC 555; 1999 (1) SCC 174.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
848
providing higher tax. The relevant portion
is reproduced below:-

"In fact, the second notification can
easily
be
treated
as
a
combined
notification both for withdrawal of
exemption and also for providing higher
tax. When power for both the operations
vests in the State and the intention to levy
the tax is clear we see no justification for
not giving effect to the 2nd notification.
We would like to point out that the
exemption was in regard to a class of
goods and while the exemption continues,
a specific item has now been notified
under section 3-A of the Act. "

16. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and
another AIR 1999 SC 293 was heavily
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents. From the report it appears
that the Pension Rules were already in
existence at the time of commencement of
the Act. The Apex Court was of the view
that unless an exemption notification
under section 5 of the Act is issued, the
provisions of the Act will be applicable.
In the case on hand, the Regulation has
come into force subsequent to the
commencement of the Act, thus the ratio
as laid down in the above case by the
Apex Court is distinguishable.

17. Apart from the above, the Apex
Court proceeded to decide a controversy
on the footing that the Payment of
Gratuity Act being a special provision for
payment of gratuity unless there is any
provision which excludes its applicability
to an employee who is otherwise
governed by the provisions of Pension
Rules, it is not possible to hold that an
employee of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi is not entitled to the gratuity under
the Act. In the present case, position is
different in as much as the Regulations
for payment of gratuity have been enacted
by the State Legislature for a class of its
employees. In this view of the matter also,
on facts the ruling given in the case of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra)
is distinguishable.

18. Viewed as above, I find
sufficient force in the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and it is
held that the contesting respondent is
entitled to get the gratuity as per the
Regulations
framed
by
the
State
Government in this regard and not under
the Payment of Gratuity Act. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order is quashed.

But no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE (MRS.) SAROJ BALA, J.
THE HON'BLE B.N. SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2853 of 1982

Ram Babu and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri. Akhilesh Singh.
Sri. Janardan Yadav.

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Indain Penal Code Section 34, 302Punishment of life imprisonment-eye
witness stated in examination -in -chiefapplicant was armed with lathi-but
nothing whisper about carrying lathi
3 All] Ram Babu and others V. State of U.P.
849
while chasing them-no inference can be
drawn that the appellant with intention
to cause death joined the co-accusedheld-prosecution failed to prove the
common intention of appellant to kill the
deceased-appeal allowed-sentence set
aside.

Held: Para 23

In the instant case there is no evidence
that the appellant Ram Autar shared
common intention with co-accused, the
main
assailants.
There
is
every
possibility
of
the
witnesses
falsely
implicating the appellant alongwith main
assailants
with
the
commission
of
offence. The testimony of eye witnesses
that the appellant alongwith co-accused
pursued them cannot be accepted. It is
remarkable to observe that in the first
part of examination-in-chief the eye
witnesses stated that the appellants
came armed with lathi but there is
omission in-the latter part that the
appellant was carrying a lathi while
chasing them. There is no evidence to
draw an inference that the co-accused
went to the tube-well with the intention
to cause death and such intention was
known to the appellant. Looking to the
involvement of uncle of first informant
and of witness Rajendra (P.W.6) in the
murder of two brothers of appellant in
two separate incidents the possibility of
his false implication cannot be ruled out.
Thus, we conclude that the prosecution
has failed to prove beyond all reasonable
doubt that the appellant Ram Autar
shared
common
intention
with
coaccused to kill the deceased.
Case law discussed:
2003 (47) ACC 388 (SC); 1999 Cri.L.J. 1334
(SC); 2001(42) ACC 770 (SC); 2001 (4) SCC
193; 1999 (8) SCC 555; 1999 (1) SCC 174.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saroj Bala, J.)

1. This criminal appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
11.11.82
passed
by
the
Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Moradabad in S.T.
No. 181 of 1981 whereby convicting the
appellants, namely Ram Babu, Ram Autar
and Jas Ram for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and
sentencing each of them to rigorous
imprisonment for life. Appellants Ram
Babu and Jas Ram having died during the
pendency of appeal, the appeal against
them stood abated vide orders dated
1.11.2007 and 6.8.2008. The appellant no.
2 Ram Autar remains the sole surviving
appellant.

2. The prosecution case shorn of
unnecessarily details is as follows:

3. On 17.1.80, the first informant
Rama Kart Sharma (P.W.4) and his
brother-in-law Vishesh Chandra Sharma
(P.W.5) had been irrigating their fields
from tube-well (Rehat). At about 12-1
O'clock noon Vimla Devi (deceased). first
informant's mother came at the fied to
serve meals. She had been washing her
hands and face at the tube-well. At the
same time appellant alongwith co-accused
Rama Shankar, Ram Babu and Jas Ram
armed with gun, country-made pistol and
lathi came there. Co-accused Ram Babu
and Rama Shankar who were armed with
gun and country-made pistol opened fire
at
first
informant's
mother.
She
succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Appellant Ram Autar and co-accused Jas
Ram chased the first informant and other
witnesses but could not catch them. The
motive behind the commission of offence
was illicit relationship of Ram Kumar,
brother of appellant with Shanti wife of
late Jagdish first informant's cousin
brother and murder of Ram Kumar about
two months before the incident. Rama
Kant Sharma (P.W.4) scribed the written
report of the incident (Ext.Ka-4) and
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
850
lodged it at Police station Sambhal at 3.50
P.M. On the basis of written report check
F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-l) was prepared by H.M.
Vishun Dutta Sharma (P.W.l) and crime
was registered at serial number 37 of G.D.
(Ext. Ka.-2).

4. S.S.I. Mahendra Saxena (P.W.8)
was entrusted with the responsibility to
investigate the crime. He visited the spot
and conducted inquest on the dead body.
He prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-
9), challan lash (Ext. Ka-1O) letter to
C.M.O. (Ext. Ka. 11) and handed over the
sealed bundle containing the dead body
alongwith police papers to constables
Surendra Pal (P.W.2) and Ranjit Singh for
transportation to mortuary for postmortem.

5. The autopsy on the dead body
was conducted by Dr. M.C.Tripathi
(P.W.3) on 18.1.80 at 4.30 P.M. and
following ante-mortem injuries were
found on the person of deceased:

1. Two rounded abrasions over left
inferior axillary region near posterior fold
of axilla 1.5 cm. x 1cm. to .2.5 cm x 1.2
cm, 1 cm. apart from each other.
Blackening present on the posterior
inferior margins of these injuries.

2. Two gun shot wounds of entry just
above the middle of outer posterior aspect
of left arm 1.5 cm. apart from each other
measuring 1.5 cm. x1.5 cm to 1.5 cm x 1
cm on probing each of these inner surface
of arm deep communicating to the
wounds of exit 2 cm x 1.5cm. to 2.2. cm x
1.5 cm exactly and directly under the
above wounds of entries. Blackening and
slight scorching was present around the
wounds of entries on the outer aspect.

3. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on upper part
of back of left side of chest. Slight
blackening present around it.

4. Incised wounds 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. to 3
cm x 2 cm. x muscle deep each; 1 cm
apart from each other over root of left side
of neck 7 cm behind and below left ear.

5. Abrasion 1.2 cm x 1 cm on left infra
clavicular region of chest. Blackening
present on latero inferior margin of
wound.

6. Wound of gun shot entry 1.2 cm x 1
cm, tatooing present all around x
communicating to wound of exit over
upper wall of chest near shoulder joint.
Wound of entry at left upper part of upper
arm 6 cm. above injury no. 2. Wound of
exit size being 2.2 cm x 1.5 cm Direction
left to right and medially.

7. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over top of
left shoulder near injury no. 6 entry.
Slight blackening present around it.

8. Gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm x
2.2 cm near left inferior angle of scapula
on back. Blackening and slight scorching
present all around the wound. On probing
and dissection the under-lying tissues of
back of chest wall left pleura and left lung
were lacerated. Direction from back to
front and medially. Two big metallic
distorted shots were removed from upper
lobe of left lung. The left pleural cavity
contained about one pint of blood.

Injury no. 4 was caused by sharp edged
weapon. All other injuries were due to
discharge of fire arm weapon. The death
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage
as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The
post-mortem certificate was Ext. Ka.-3.
3 All] Ram Babu and others V. State of U.P.
851

6. Investigating officer collected the
samples of blood stained earth and plain
earth (Exts. 6 and 7) from the scene of
offence under the memo (Ext. Ka-13). He
prepared the site plan of the place of
offence (Ext. Ka. 14). He interrogated the
relevant witnesses. On 20.1.80 Inspector
I/c Jag Vir Singh (P.W.7) took the
investigation.
After
completing
the
necessary formalities he submitted the
charge sheet (Ext. Ka. 5) against four
accused
persons.
Co-accused
Rama
Shankar,
brother
of
sole
surviving
appellant
was
murdered
before the
committal of this case.

7.

The
C.J.M.,
Moradabad
committed the accused to the court of
Sessions for standing trial for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused
were charged for the offence under
Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the Additional
Sessions Judge-III. They pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to
support the charge examined as many as
eight witnesses. Rama Kant (P.W4),
Vishesh Chandra Sharma (P.W.5) and
Rajendra Sharma (P.W.6) were witnesses
of fact. H.C. Vishnoo Dutt Mishra
(P.W.l). C.P. Surendra Pal (P.W.2), Dr.
M.C.Tripathi (P.W.3), Inspector Jag Vir
Singh (P.W.7) and S.S.I. Mahendra
Saxena (P.W.8) were formal witnesses.

9. The accused in their statements
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they
were falsely implicated due to enmity.

10. The trial court on appraisal of
evidence
recorded
the
finding
of
conviction against the accused persons.

11. We have heard Sri Akhilesh
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
No.2 Ram Autar, the learned A.G.A. and
have gone through the trial court record.

12. The learned counsel for the
appellant has challenged the finding of
conviction on the grounds: the eye
witness
account
does
not
receive
corroboration from the medical evidence;
Rajendra Sharma (P.W.6) being an
accused in the case of murder of coaccused Rama Shankar, he is an interested
witness; the appellant did not share
common intention with co-accused nor he
actively participated in the commission of
offence, the prosecution case was not
proved against him; the incident took
place in broad day light but no
independent witnesses were examined.
The learned counsel in support of his
arguments
placed
reliance
on
the
decisions in Harjit Singh & others Vs.
State of Punjab- 2003 (47) ACC 388
(SC) and Mohan Singh & another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh -1999 Cri.L.J.
1334 (SC).

13. The eye witness account
narrated by Rama Kant (P.W4), Vishesh
Chandra (P.W.S) and Rajendra Sharma
(P.W.6) at the trial is required to be stated
in necessary details for the purpose of
appreciation
and
evaluation
of
the
prosecution case.

14. Rama Kant (P.W.4) is the first
informant and the son of deceased. He
deposed that at the time of incident he
was cleaning the irrigation drain. His
brother-in-law was operating the tubewell (Rehat) and his mother was washing
her face and hands at the tube-well. On
that day they were irrigating their wheat
field. At about 12-1 O'clock noon Rama
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
852
Shankar, Ram Autar, Ram Babu and Jas
Ram came there. Ram Babu was armed
with gun, Rama Shankar had countrymade pistol and remaining two were
carrying lathis. On seeing them they
moved towards western side. No sooner
his mother got up and stood straight the
accused Ram Babu and Rama Shankar
opened fire from gun and country-made
pistol which hit her. On sustaining
injuries his mother ran towards the field
of Rameshwar and fell-down at a short
distance. The accused opened another
shot of fire at her from close range. The
accused Ram Autar and Jas Ram chased
them while they ran away towards
western direction for safety. He admitted
that Pooran was his real uncle and
Veerpal brother of Pooran was accused in
the case of murder of Ram Kumar. His
third uncle Har Charan alias Sahukar was
murdered. Ram Kumar was son of real
sister of mother of Pooran. Ram Kumar
resided in Peepal wali Madaiya and
owned 100 bighas agricultural land and a
tube-well. His sister-in-law had called
Ram Kumar to look after her agricultural
land. He admitted that after this incident
accused Rama Shankar was killed and
witnesses
of
present
case
namely,
Rajendra (P.W.6) and Maqsood were
accused in the said case.

15. Vishesh Chandra Sharma
(P.W.5) testified that about two years four
months before at about 12-1 O'Clock
noon he was operating the tube-well in
the field of his brother-in-Law (Jeeja).
The mother of his brother-in-law came at
the field to serve meals to them. She was
washing her face and hands at the drain of
the tube-well. At the same time Ram
Babu, Ram Autar and Rama Shankar
came from the eastern side. Co-accused
Jas Ram was seen coming at a distance
from them. Ram Babu and Rama Shankar
opened fire with gun and country made
pistol at Vimla Devi. When they ran for
safety towards eastern direction accussed
Jas Ram and Ram Autar chased them. He
went on to state that while running away
they were seeing behind by turning their
back and saw the accused opening other
shot
at
Vimla
Devi.The
remaining
accused pursued them but they could not
catch them. In his cross examination he
deposed that Ram Autar and Jas Ram
chased
them
with
lathis
but
they
continued running through the fields.
Both the accused chased them to a
distance of 15-20 paces. They were
running 21⁄2 to 3 yards ahead of the
accused.

16. Rajendra Sharma (P.W.6.) stated
that he alongwith Maqsood was cutting
sugar-cane in the fields of Bihari situated
towards the northern side of the field of
Rama Kant. Accused Ram Autar and Jas
Ram chased the witnesses Rama Kant and
Vishesh Chandra Sharma but they could
not catch them. He admitted that he
owned 100 bighas agricultural land and a
flour mill. He admitted that he was an
accused in the case of murder of Rama
Shankar.

17. The evidence of eye witnesses
brings out that three shots were fired at
the deceased by co-accused Ram Babu
and Rama Shankar. Co-accused was
murdered
during
the
pendency
of
committal proceedings and Rajendra
Sharma (P.W. 6) and Maqsood are
accused in the said case. Co -accused
Ram Babu appellant no.1 and Jas Ram
appellant no.3 died during the pendency
of appeal. Ram Kumar brother of coaccused Rama Shankar and appellant was
killed two or three months before the
3 All] Ram Babu and others V. State of U.P.
853
incident and Veerpal uncle of Rama Kant
(P.W.4) was accused in the said case. The
witness Vishesh Chandra Sharma (P.W.5)
is a resident of village Sirohi situated
within the territorial limits of Police
Station Behjoi whereas witness Rajendra
Sharma (P.W.6) resided at Sherpur, Police
Station Hayat Nagar. The incident took
place in village Akhtiyarpur within the
territorial limits of Police Station Hayat
Nagar. The father of Vishesh Chandra
Sharma owned 125 bigha land and he
(P.W.5) is real brother-in-law of Rama
Kant(P.W.4). According to the medical
evidence there was more possibility of the
injuries having been caused by more than
three shots of fire. The appellant Ram
Autar was armed with lathi. According to
the eye witnesses he alongwith coaccused Jas Ram (since deceased) chased
Rama Kant (P.W.4) and Vishesh Chandra
Sharma (P.W.5) but could not catch them.
They had pursued them to a distance of
15-20 paces. There is no independent
witness of the incident. The witnesses
examined are interested persons. The
appellant and co-accused chased the
witness after the firing of two shots at the
deceased.

18. In the background of the
abovementioned facts we switch over to
the question of joint liability of conviction
of accused appellant no. 2 Ram Autar
under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

19. The prosecution witness have
not attributed any overt act to the accused
appellant. The appellant was armed with
lathi. He alongwith co-accused chased the
witness P.W.4 and P.W.5 to a distance of
15-20 paces but no injury was caused to
them. The question for consideration is
whether the sharing of common intention
to cause death with co-accused Rama
Shankar and Ram Babu could be drawn.
In order to establish the charge under
under Section 302 with the aid of Section
34 I.P.C. it is to be established that the
criminal act was done by one of the
accused
in
furtherance
of
common
intention of all. Section 34 I.P.C. enjoins
the principle of joint liability in doing the
criminal act based on common intention.
The common intention can be inferred
from the manner in which the accused
reached at the scene of crime and
mounted assault, injuries caused by one or
some of them and subsequent conduct
after the death. The co-accused who
opened fired at the deceased were related
to each other as maternal uncle and
nephew. The appellant and co-accused
armed with lathis did not scare the
witnesses while the main shooters were
opening fire. The witness being inimically
deposed
against
the
appellant,
the
possibility of his false implication with
main assailants cannot be ruled out. There
is nothing on record for drawing an
inference that the intention of causing
death was unknown to the appellant.

20. The Apex Court in Suresh &
another Vs. State of U.P. -2001(42)
ACC 770 (SC) has held that " the
accused who is to be fastened with
liability on the strength of Section 34
I.P.C. should have done some act which
has nexus with the offence. Such act need
not be very substantial, it is enough that
the act is only for guarding the scene for
facilitating the crime. The act need not
necessarily be overt, even if it is only a
covert act it is enough, provided such a
covert act is proved to have been done by
the co-accused in furtherance of the
common intention. Even an omission can,
in certain circumstances, amount to an
act." It was further held that " an act,
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
854
whether overt or covert, is indespensable
to be done by a co-accused to fastened
with the liability under the section. But if
no such act is done by a person, even if he
has a common intention with the others
for the accomplishment of crime, Section
34 IPC cannot be invoked for convicting
that person. In other words, the accused
who only keeps the common intention in
his mind, but does not do any act at the
scene, cannot be convicted with the aid of
Section 34 IPC."

21. In Mithu Singh Vs. State of
Punjab- 2001 (4) SCC 193, the Apex
Court has held that the common intention
has to be distinguished from same or
similar intention on the basis of facts of
each case. In that case the Court opined
that merely because the appellant armed
with pistol alongwith co-accused came to
the place of deceased did not indicate the
common intention of the appellant for
causing death of deceased.

22. In Ramashish Yadav & others
Vs. State of Bihar-1999 (8) SCC 555,
and
Ajai
Sharma
Vs.
State
of
Rajasthan-1999 (1) SCC 174, the Apex
Court held that accused caught hold of the
deceased
whereas
the
co-accused
mounted assault did not indicate that the
accused who caught hold the deceased
shared
common
intention
of
main
accused.

23. In the instant case there is no
evidence that the appellant Ram Autar
shared
common
intention
with
coaccused, the main assailants. There is
every possibility of the witnesses falsely
implicating the appellant alongwith main
assailants with the commission of offence.
The testimony of eye witnesses that the
appellant alongwith co-accused pursued
them cannot be accepted. It is remarkable
to observe that in the first part of
examination-in-chief the eye witnesses
stated that the appellants came armed with
lathi but there is omission in-the latter
part that the appellant was carrying a lathi
while chasing them. There is no evidence
to draw an inference that the co-accused
went to the tube-well with the intention to
cause death and such intention was known
to
the
appellant.
Looking
to
the
involvement of uncle of first informant
and of witness Rajendra (P.W.6) in the
murder of two brothers of appellant in
two separate incidents the possibility of
his false implication cannot be ruled out.
Thus, we conclude that the prosecution
has failed to prove beyond all reasonable
doubt that the appellant Ram Autar shared
common intention with co-accused to kill
the deceased.

24. In view of the aforesaid findings
the appeal of appellant no. 2 Ram Autar is
allowed and his conviction and sentence
under Section 302 read with 34 l.P.C. are
set aside. The appellant is accordingly
acquitted. The appellant is on bail to
which he need not surrender. His bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

25. Certify the judgment to the
lower court within a week. The record of
the case be also transmitted to the court
below immediately. Appeal allowed.
---------
3 All] Shree Marwari Seva Sangh Varanasi V. State of U.P. and others
855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43367 of 2008

Shree Marwari Seva Sangh, Varanasi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Sunil Tripathi
Sri. Amitabh Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-writ of
certiorari quashing of notification dated
24.02.2006-column 2 serial no. 24-by
which for the first time charitable
'Dharmashala' except no charges or
charge
upto
Rs.5/-brought
within
purview of income tax-parity claimed of
institutions run by charitable trust-held-
Dharmashala may have object of charity
but its employees are not governed by
said
object-provisions
of
minimum
wages equally applicable -cannot seek
exemption from tax-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 8

Even Charitable hospitals have been
included in the definition of industry by
virtue of decision rendered by the Apex
Court in A.1.R. 1978 S.C. 548 Banglore
Water Supply and Sewerage board Vs. A
Rajappa and others. This decision still
holds good, therefore, Dharmashala run
by the society may be for charity and
engaged in providing social services and
means
as
stated
above,
but
its
employees are not governed by the
objects of the society and minimum
wages are required to be paid to them.
Those objects are of the society running
Dharmashala and not of its employees,
therefore, in my opinion, Dharmashala is
also an industry and notification can be
issued by the Government for bringing it
within the schedule employment and
minimum wages can be fixed according
to the procedure prescribed under the
Minimum Wages Act.
Case law discussed:
A.1.R. 1978 S.C. 548

(Delivered by Hon'ble. Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.

2. According to the counsel for
petitioner, " Shree Marwari Seva Sangh"
the petitioner is a registered society
managing "Dharmshala" and rendering
services for stay etc. to the pilgrims,
passengers,
old
people
and
their
attendants without taking any charge from
them and there is no business or
commercial activities in the Dharmashala.
The source of income of the society is
donations from charity minded persons
and its income is also exempted under
section 80 G(5) of the Income Tax Act,
1961.

3. For the first time, by notification
dated 30.12.1994 appended as annexure11 to the writ petition, minimum wages
were
fixed
for
employment
in
Dharmashala except those charging no
rent or charging upto Rs.5/- per day as
rent, were exempted from the purview of
aforesaid notification.

4. It is stated that since no charge/
rent is being realised by the petitioner for
rendering aforesaid services, it belongs to
the exempted category. The petitioner
Dharmashala was inspected on 27.5.2008
and against the inspection note dated
27.5.2008 under the Minimum Wages