# Rashid & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 802
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1047 of 1989
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Akhtar Husain Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rashid-ors-v-state-of-u-p-42982
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.G.A., Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha

Criminal
Appeal-Conviction
of
life
imprisonment
under
Section
302,
323/34 IPC and one month rigorous
imprisonment under section 323/34 IPCon ground of minor discrepancies in
statement of prosecution witness-place
2 All] Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
803
of incident and presence of accusedadmitted-death caused from knife injury on
chest-prosecution story supported by ocular
evidence as well as medical evidence-heldminor discrepancies bound to occur in
statement
of
truthful
witness-no
interference called for -appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-28
We may record that minor discrepancies,
which have been sought to be projected by
the
counsel
for
the
appellants
with
reference to the testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-
2 and P.W.-3 pertaining to incident in
question are only trivial in nature. Trivial
discrepancies
will
not
result
in
the
prosecution version being disbelieved, as
has been laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgment reported in (2012) 4 SCC 124;
Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri. It has been held that minor
contradictions are bound to appear in
statements
of
truthful
witnesses
as
memory sometimes plays false and sense of
observation differs from person to person.

Case Law discussed:
(2012) 4 SCC 124; (2013) 12 SCC 796; (2013)
12 SCC 294.

## Text

802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions may not be taken away on a
presumption based on unfounded ground.
What will happen in due course of time in
case statutory provision is implemented
affects adversely should be looked into by
the Legislature and not by the Courts.

34. Learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
reported in 2011 (4) ALJ 234: Ramakant
Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein it
has been held that even if no suit is filed,
presumption may be drawn with regard to
civil death. For convenience, relevant
portion of para 11 and 12 of the aforesaid
judgment are reproduced as under:

"11. We find that the learned single
Judge did not consider that even if the suit
was not filed, the presumption could be
drawn, if the conditions imperative for
raising the presumption were satisfied.
Once a presumption of civil death is
raised on the satisfaction of the conditions
given in Section 108 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the burden of proof that he
is alive, is then shifted to the person who
affirms that the person reported missing
was seen and is alive.

12. In Ajay Kumar Tewari v. Dy.
Inspector
General
of
Police
(Establishment) Police Headquarter, U.P.,
Allahabad, and others [2005 ESC (Alld)
671) [delivered by one of us (Hon'ble
Sunil Ambwani, J)], it has been held that
the provision of Section 108 of Evidence
Act would be applied for claiming
compassionate appointment."

35. For the reasons discussed
hereinabove, the presumption drawn by
the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to
death of Om Prakash, seems to be not
incorrect. Rather, it is based on sound
principles of law. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the Hon'ble Single Judge does not seem to
suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

36. In view of the above, the
appellant shall appoint the respondent on
compassionate ground expeditiously say,
within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of the
present judgment with all consequential
benefits.

37. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge
is affirmed accordingly and subject to
above, the appeal is decided finally.

No orders as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1047 of 1989

Rashid & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sr Preetpal Singh Rathore, Sri R.C. Kandpal,
Sri M. Islam, Sri G.S. Hazela

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha

Criminal
Appeal-Conviction
of
life
imprisonment
under
Section
302,
323/34 IPC and one month rigorous
imprisonment under section 323/34 IPCon ground of minor discrepancies in
statement of prosecution witness-place
2 All] Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
803
of incident and presence of accusedadmitted-death caused from knife injury on
chest-prosecution story supported by ocular
evidence as well as medical evidence-heldminor discrepancies bound to occur in
statement
of
truthful
witness-no
interference called for -appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-28
We may record that minor discrepancies,
which have been sought to be projected by
the
counsel
for
the
appellants
with
reference to the testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-
2 and P.W.-3 pertaining to incident in
question are only trivial in nature. Trivial
discrepancies
will
not
result
in
the
prosecution version being disbelieved, as
has been laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgment reported in (2012) 4 SCC 124;
Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri. It has been held that minor
contradictions are bound to appear in
statements
of
truthful
witnesses
as
memory sometimes plays false and sense of
observation differs from person to person.

Case Law discussed:
(2012) 4 SCC 124; (2013) 12 SCC 796; (2013)
12 SCC 294.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and order of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(E.C. Act), Budaun dated 01.05.1989
passed is Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1986,
being Case Crime No. 2 of 1986.

2. Appellant no. 1 Rashid has been
convicted of an offence under Section 302
and 323/34 I.P.C. He has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
under Section 302 I.P.C. and 1 month
rigorous imprisonment for the offence
under Section 323/34 I.P.C.

3. Appellants Adil, Kamil and Nasir
have been found guilty of an offence
under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life.

4. Appellant Kamil has also been
found guilty of an offence under Section
323 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month, while accused Adil and Nasir have
been further found guilty of offence under
Section 323/34 I.P.C. and have been
sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of
one month. All the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.

5. The prosecution case, as has been
disclosed on the record, is as follows:

6. An oral first information report
was lodged by Baboo Khan maternal
uncle of deceased Akhlaq on 03.01.1986
at 4.45 p.m. with the police station
Kotwali, district Budaun. It was stated
that the informant Baboo s/o Ansar
Husain is Shekh Ansari by caste and is a
resident of Mohalla-Uparpara, Police
Station-Kotwali, Budaun. The accused
Rasid, Adil and Nasir sons of Wali
Mohammad and Kamil s/o Banno are
Ansari by caste and were also residents of
the same Mohalla. On the date of
information at around 9.00 a.m. the
sister's daughter of the informant Parveen
had gone to fetch water from the tank
there Rashid and Adil had misbehaved
with her. This resulted in hot talks
between Akhlaq Husain s/o Asrar Husain
sister's son of informant. However, no
further action was taken for the sake of
reputation. Today at 4.00 p.m. when the
informant along with Akhlaq and nephew
Aadil Husain s/o Rahamat Husain was
proceeding from his residence to the
timber shop situate at Mohalla-Jogipura
and had reached Mandir (temple) near
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lalpul crossing when Rashid, Adil, Nasir
and Kamil met them. Kamil had a Danda
in his hand, Rashid had a knife and Nasir
had a Hockey in his hand, they
surrounded the informant, Akhlaq and
Aadil. Kamil stated that in the morning
they had used foul language. The nephew
of the informant asked to stop abusing
otherwise consequences will follow, at
this point of time Kamil assaulted Adil
with the Danda in his hand. The informant
snatched the Danda from the hand of
Kamil and tried to retaliate him with the
same. At this point of time Nasir and Adil
got hold of Akhlaq and Kamil shouted
'finish them'. Immediately, Rashid pierced
the knife in the chest of Akhlaq. Akhlaq
dropped on the ground because of the
injury. The informant shouted for help.
Witnesses Jamal Uddin s/o Abdul Gani,
r/o Jaldhari Sarai, Afsar Ali Khan s/o
Hashmat Ali Khan r/o Mushtafaganj and
Shamshad r/o Aljha Sarai, who were
having tea at the nearby stall and had seen
the incident, ran for help. The accused ran
towards west. The knife lay penetrated in
the chest of Akhlaq. He was taken to the
hospital immediately for treatment on a
Rickshaw, where he expired. The dead
body and the knife were lying in the
hospital.

7. The first information report was
registered as Case Crime No. 2 of 1986,
police station-Kotwali, district-Budaun.
The distance between the place of
occurrence and the police station was one
kilometer.

8. On registration of the first
information report, S.I. Lakhan Singh
Yadav rushed to the District Hospital
Budaun. The weapon (knife) was taken in
possession and sealed in the presence of
Dr. R.M.L. Srivastava and compounder
Chander Prakash. The memo (Ext. Ka-5)
was prepared. The knife was found lying
on Patia in front of Outdoor Patient
Room. It had been taken out from the
chest of deceased by the complainant at
the hospital at time the victim was
struggling for his life. On 04.01.1986 the
S.I. Prepared the inquest report as well as
other connected papers and arranged for
the dead body to be sent for post-mortem
through constable Munish Kumar. The
post-mortem
of
the
deceased
was
performed by Dr. T.N. Sharma. The
injuries suffered by Aadil were examined
by
Dr.
R.M.L.
Srivastava.
The
investigation of the case was conducted
by S.S.I. Vidha Dhar Pandey, who
prepared
the
site
plan
and
also
interrogated the witnesses and also
recorded
the
statements
of
the
complainant and others. The investigation
officer submitted the charge-sheet against
the accused Rashid, Nasir and Adil (Ext.
Ka-14) and on 27.01.1986 he submitted
the charge-sheet against accused Kamil
(Ext. Ka-15).

9. The case was committed for trial
Session. The prosecution in support of its
case examined Jamal Uddin the eye
witness as P.W.-1, Adil Husain injured
witness as P.W.-2, Baboo Khan injured
eye witness as P.W.-3, Head constable
Om Prakash as P.W.-4, S.I. Lakhan Singh
Yadav, who proved the recovery of the
knife and inquest report etc., was
examined as P.W.-5, Dr. T.N. Sharma,
who conducted the post-mortem on the
dead body of Akhlaq, was examined as
P.W.-6, Dr. R.M.L. Srivastava, who
examined the injuries suffered by Adil
Husain, was examined as P.W.-7, S.I.
B.S. Yadav was examined as P.W.-8, he
proved the handwriting of the S.S.I.
Vidya Dhar Pandey, who had conducted
2 All] Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
805
the investigation. Sri Vidya Dhar Pandey
could not be produced as he was reported
to be suffering from cancer and was at
Bombay for his treatment.

10. The injury caused on the person
of Adil as per the injury report were as
follows:

1. Contusion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the
mid of skull in left parietal bone 1 Cm
lateral to saggital sature. The colour of
injury was raddish.

2. Contusion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on back
of skull in left occipital region. The injury
was reported to be red in colour.

11. According to Dr. Srivastava the
injured at the time of examination was
also complaining of pain on lower part of
1/3rd portion of left leg. According to him
all the injuries were simple and were
caused by some blunt object. According
to him the injuries were fresh at the time
of examination.

12. The ante-mortem injuries on the
body of the deceased as per the postmortem report submitted by Dr. T.N.
Sharma were as follows:

1. Lacerated wound 11⁄2 Cm x 0.2 Cm
x bone deep on the back of head at the
level of occipal.

2. One stabbled wound 2.3 Cm x 0.5
Cm x Cavity deep with clean cut margin,
obliquely placed at the 6th inter costal
space 4.5 Cm below the left nipple at 5 O'
clock position under injury inter costed.
Walls were found clean cut and a hole of
2 Cm x 0.5 Cm was present in the lower
lobe to left lung under the injury. He
found a hole 2 Cm x 0.5 Cm x left vertical
of the heart. The wound was found
directing towards middle and backwards.

13. On internal examination of the
body Dr. Sharma found about 2 litres of
blood in the cavity of chest. Both
chambers of the heart were found empty.

14. According to Dr. Sharma cause
of
death
was
due
to
shock
and
haemorrhage and on account of antemortem injury no. 2 caused on the
deceased.

15. Injury no. 2 has been caused by
some sharp edged weapon, while injury
no. 1 could have been caused by a Danda.
Injury no. 2 was sufficient to cause death.
The possible time when the injury has
been caused on the deceased was recorded
as about 4.00 p.m. on 03.01.1986. The
clothes worn by the deceased and knife
recovered
were
sent
for
chemical
examination. The chemical examination
report recorded that some blood stains
were found on these articles.

16. The accused in their statements
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
pleaded not guilty and denied their
participation in the alleged crime. It was
stated that they have been falsely
implicated in the case because of enmity.
Accused Rashid has submitted that his
real sister had come from Pilibhit on the
occasion of 'Ghiyarwin Shareef' on the
date and time of incident. She was
travelling in a rickshaw when Munna,
Akhlaq
and
Waseem
took
her
photographs to which Rashid and his
other
family
members
objected.
According to him the camera was
snatched. Akhlaq, Waseem and Munna
made an attempt to take back the camera.
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He and his brothers were surrounded by
them. According to Rashid, he took out
the reel from the camera. A quarrel took
place between the persons present.
Waseem assaulted Rashid with a knife
which incidentally hit Akhlaq. The
photograph prepared out of the reel were
produced before the Court.

17. Accused Kamil pleaded that on
the date of occurrence he was out of
Budaun. It was also claimed that the
witness Jamal Uddin is relative of Baboo
Khan and was earlier employed in his
timber shop. Accused Nasir and Adil also
repeated the same version of defence.

18. The accused produced D.W.-1
Naresh Pal as the defence witness, who
claimed that he was residing at about 4050 steps from three road crossing of
Lalpul. At the date and time of incident he
was going for tuition, when he reached
the three road crossing of Lalpul he saw a
cycle-rickshaw
carrying
three
girls.
Rashid was following the Rickshaw.
Waseem,
Akhlaq
and
Munna
took
photographs of these girls to which
accused Rashid objected. Rashid also
tried to snatch the camera from the hands
of Akhlaq. The parties got involved in
scuffle. Waseem pulled out a knife and
tried to assault Rashid. Rashid incidently
escaped unhurt, the knife pierced into the
chest of Akhlaq.

19. Shaukat Ali was produced as
D.W.-2. He is stated to be Qazi. He
produced the record of Nikahnama as per
the Nikah Register of 1955 for the
purposes of establishing that Jamal Uddin
had married one Kanizun Nisah. Copies
of the photographs were marked as Ext.
Ka-1 and Ext. Ka-2. On behalf of the
accused copy of the personal bond filed
by Jamal Uddin in case under Section
107/116
was
also
filed
as
other
documentary evidence.

20.

The
Trial
Court,
after
considering the evidence led by the
parties, specifically held that time and
place of occurrence of the incident is not
in controversy. Presence of accused
Rashid, Adil, Kamil, Nasir and deceased
Akhlaq on the spot is also admitted. The
weapon, which pierce the heart of the
deceased is also not in dispute. Death was
caused to Akhlaq because of the assault
with knife was not in controversy. The
only difference between the parties was in
the manner in which the incident took
place because of which the deceased
Akhlaq received the injury.

21.

The
Trial
Court,
after
considering the evidence tendered by the
defence witnesses, found that the story as
stated by them was full of discrepancies
and therefore he did not accept the same.
It has been recorded that while Rashid
claimed that his sister had come from
Pilibhit, D.W.-1 stated that there were
three girls on the Rickshaw and that
Rashid was following the Rickshaw. The
Court has recorded that if only the sister
of Rashid, who came from Pilibhit, was
on the Rickshaw, there was no occasion
for Rashid to follow the Rickshaw and not
to sit on the same. It has further been
recorded that if the sister had come from
Pilibhit, as suggested by Rashid and
P.W.-1, from bus, then there is no reason
for Akhlaq, Waseem and Munna to have
gone to the place of occurrence in the
expectation of her arrival at Budaun with
the camera for taking photographs.

22. It has been held that absolutely
no explanation could be given as to where
2 All] Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
807
the camera has gone. It has also been
recorded that if Waseem had actually
assaulted Akhlaq with knife then there
was no occasion for the informant to have
not disclosed the involvement of Waseem
in the incident, as he had no relationship
with the complainant Baboo Khan. The
Trial Court has, therefore, rejected the
version of the incident as set up by the
defence.

23. So far as the version pleaded by
the prosecution is concerned, it has
specifically been recorded that the first
information report has been lodged within
a short duration of 45 minute from the
time of accident. The prosecution version
is well supported by eye witness account
of Jamal Uddin, eye witness account of
Adil injured witness and the eye witness
account of Baboo Khan (P.W.-3) the
informant. It has further been recorded
that the ocular evidence of the prosecution
is will supported by the medical evidence,
specifically
the
ante-mortem
injury
suffered by the deceased and the injury
report of Adil Husain.

24. The Trial Court has, therefore,
come to a conclusion that the prosecution
in the facts of the case has been able to
establish the charges against the accused
with certainty and accordingly it has
convicted the accused and has sentenced
them for the offences as detailed above.

25. Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel
for the appellants made an attempt to
challenge the findings recorded by the
Trial Court by pointing out the minor
discrepancies in the statements of the
prosecution
witnesses.
He
further
submitted that in the facts of the case
instigators
of
the
fight
were
the
complainant and not the accused. He
repeated the version of the incident as was
disclosed by Rashid, Adil and defence
witness D.W.-1. Lastly he submitted that
even if the entire case of the prosecution
is accepted, then Rashid alone could have
been convicted of an offence under
Section 302 I.P.C. in as much as the blow
as alleged to have been inflicted by him
upon Akhlaq has proved fatal and it was
Rashid who alone had inflicted said blow.
He,
therefore,
submitted
that
other
accused could not have been convicted
under Section 302 with the help of
Section 34 Cr.P.C., as there has been on
premeditated decision between the coaccused nor they had any common
intention on the spur of the moment so as
to be held proportionally liable under
Section 34 I.P.C.

26. Learned A.G.A. on the contrary
submits that the first information report
has been lodged promptly within 45
minutes of the incident. The prosecution
story is well established from the ocular
evidence of eye witness P.W.-1, injured
eye witness P.W.-2 and informant eye
witness Baboo Khan P.W.-3. Ocular
evidence is also supported by the medical
evidence. Therefore, in the facts of the
case the Trial Court has rightly held that
the prosecution has been able to establish
the charge with certainty. He reiterated
the reasons recorded in the order of the
Trial Court and that the defence version
of the incident has rightly not been
accepted.

27. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
records.

28. We may record that minor
discrepancies, which have been sought to
be projected by the counsel for the
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants with reference to the testimony
of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 pertaining
to incident in question are only trivial in
nature. Trivial discrepancies will not
result in the prosecution version being
disbelieved, as has been laid down by the
Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2012) 4 SCC 124; Sampath Kumar vs.
Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri. It has
been held that minor contradictions are
bound to appear in statements of truthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays
false and sense of observation differs
from person to person.

29. What is material omission and
material discrepancy, which may be
relevant for discrediting the evidence of a
prosecution witness, has been explained
by the Apex Court in the judgment
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 796; Mritunjoy
Biswas vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and
another (para 28).

30. It was contended by the counsel for
the appellants that the informant only in
order to lend colour the story in his statement
suggested that the knife was taken out from
the body of Akhlaq by him in the hospital,
while the deceased was still struggling for his
life. It is stated that there was no reason as to
why the knife was not taken out from the
body of the deceased immediately and why it
was permitted to remain in the body of the
deceased till the injured reached the hospital.

31. We may record that the
challenge so made is not of much
substance. How will a witnesses act with
in a given situation is not controlled by
any settled norms. If the informant had
taken out the knife only in the hospital
from the body of the victim, no adverse
inference can be drawn in respect of the
prosecution story.

32. The Trial Court has rightly
recorded that the place of incident, the
presence of the victim, accused and
injured Adil on the spot is admitted
between the parties. It is also admitted to
the parties that Akhlaq had expired
because of the knife injury suffered by
him in his chest. The defence version of
the incident was not convincing. The Trial
Court has accepted the prosecution story,
which was well supported by the ocular
evidence and medical evidence and has
rightly convicted the accused of the
offence under the sections noticed above.

33. So far as the plea of appellant
Rashid alone being responsible for causing the
injury and ultimate death of deceased Akhlaq
and there being no premeditated decision
between other co-accused to perform the
particular criminal act is concerned, suffice is
to record that the other accused have been
held guilty on the principle of vicarious
liability enshrined by Section 34 of I.P.C. The
legal principle in that regard has been
explained in the judgment reported in (2013)
12 SCC 294; Raghbir Chand and others vs.
State of Punjab.

34. We from the records find that on the
date and time of incident all the four accused
remained in waiting for Akhlaq to teach him a
lesson for having behaved in particular
manner with Rashid and Adil in the morning
of same day. All the four accused have
surrounded Akhlaq along with his maternal
uncle and injured Adil at 4.00 p.m. at the
crossing of Lalpul. At the relevant time
Rashid was armed with knife, Adil and Nasir
were armed with Danda and Kamil was with
them without any arm.

35. It is further established from the
record that Akhlaq had been caught hold
of by Nasir and Adil. Kamil exhorted
2 All] Love Care Foundation Vs. Union of India and Anr.
809
Rashid to finish him and at that time
Rashid had inflicted the injury on the
chest of Akhlaq with the help of knife. It
is, therefore, clear that in the facts of the
case there had been a premeditated
decision between the co-accused and their
common intention was to commit the
crime. The law as explained in the case of
Raghbir Chand (supra) does not support
the accused for the facts noticed.

36. For the reasons recorded above,
we find no good ground to interfere with
the judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court dated 01.05.1989.

37. The appellant no. 3, namely,
Adil has since expired and his appeal has
already been abated under order of the
Court dated 04.07.2014.

38. The conviction of the appellant no.
1, namely, Rashid for an offence under
Section 302 I.P.C., for having committed
murder of deceased Akhlaq, and sentence to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as
well as his conviction for an offence under
Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentence with
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1
month respectively is affirmed.

39. The conviction of appellant nos.
2 and 4, namely, Nasir and Kamil for the
offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and
sentence
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment for life is affirmed.

40. Conviction of Kamil for the
offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and
sentence to undergo imprisonment for a
term of one month is affirmed.

41. Conviction of Nasir for the
offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one
month is affirmed.

42. The appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

43. The appellants, namely, Rashid,
Nasir and Kamil are on bail. Their bail
bonds
are
cancelled.
Sureties
are
discharged. They shall be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the
sentence so awarded to them by the Trial
Court.

44. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Budaun may ensure compliance of the
judgment delivered by this Court today.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH
RATHORE, J.

Writ Petition No. 1078(M/B) of 2013

Love Care Foundation ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Seth and Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C. & A.S.G.

Constitution of India, Art. 47 & 226Pseudo
mode
of
advertisementattractive packing of cigarettes attracts
youth smoking -contrary to objects
contained in (Regulation of Production
Supply and Distribution) Act 1975-duty
cost upon state government under Art.
47-smoking cause of several diseaseadversely
affecting
the
health
of