# Ratan Lal v. State of U.P 1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1845 of 2011
- **Bench:** Amar Saran, Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratan-lal-v-state-of-u-p-1576-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-42796
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Jail Appeal-Release on bail accused-in
jail for 28 years-considering direction of
Hon'ble
High
Court-although
bail
granted-but in absence of security of Rs.
1000000/-could not get the fruit-prayer
for release on execution of personal
bond of Rs. 20,000/-granted-subject to
appearance in concerned police station
on every falling three months.

Held: Para-5
In view of above decision of the Apex
Court as the appellant has been in jail for
such a long time., it would be difficult for
him to arrange for personal sureties for
him. We, therefore direct the trial Court
Judge to comply with our order. We
direct
that
the
appellant
shall
be
released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for Rs.20,000/-. However,
he is required to appear at the police
station Sadar Bazar, Jhansi after every
three months. In case of failure to
appear at the police station as directed
above,
it
would
be
open
to
the
authorities of the court concerned to
take steps for cancellation of his bail.

Case Law discussed:
(1978)4 SCC 47; (1980) 1 SCC 81.

## Text

3 All] Ratan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
1575
name of the office bearers and an objection
as to the validity of the office bearers who
were duly elected has been filed, the
Registrar considering under Section 25(1)
ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed
Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent
decision in the Committee of Management
(Supra) it has been held that the Registrar "is
not a post office for referring any and every
dispute". The Division Bench there held that
more than three years after the holding of an
election there was no reason to entertain a
petition at the belated stage.

9. In the present case, a list was
submitted by the third respondent, of office
bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list
was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had
conflicting claims between the appellants on
the one hand and the third respondent on the
other hand. Hence when an application for
taking on record the names of the officer
bearers was filed and an objection to the
validity of the elected office bearers was
placed before him, the Registrar ought to have
referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1). In entertaining
the dispute himself and going into merits of
the rival claims, the Deputy Registrar has
clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute in
respect of an election of the office bearers of
the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority
and the Registrar ought to have made a
reference to the Prescribed Authority.

10. The learned Single Judge is right in
holding that the Prescribed Authority would
have to decide under Section 25(1) upon the
dispute which is raised. To that extent the
observations of the learned Single Judge are
justified. However, we find merit in the
contention of the appellants that the petition
could not have been dismissed merely with
liberty to move the Prescribed Authority. The
appropriate direction to pass, was to set aside
the order of the Deputy Registrar which is an
order without jurisdiction since the Deputy
Registrar has decided an issue which fell
within exclusive domain of the Prescribed
Authority.

11. In consequence and while
allowing the special appeal, we modify
the order of the learned Single Judge in
the following terms:-

(1) The order passed by the Deputy
Registrar on 26 July 2013 is quashed and
set aside as being without jurisdiction;

(2) The Deputy Registrar is directed to
make a reference under Section 25(1) of the
Societies' Registration Act, 1860 to the
Prescribed Authority within a period of two
weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this
order;

(3) The Prescribed Authority shall upon
receipt of the reference under Section 25(1)
decide upon the reference within a period of
three months of the receipt of the reference;

(4) The Deputy Registrar shall
thereafter take necessary steps under
Section 4 upon receipt of the order of the
Prescribed Authority expeditiously.

12. The special appeal is accordingly
disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1845 of 2011

Ratan Lal... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P..... Opposite Party
1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Akhilesh Singh, Sri Noor
Mohd. Sri Shivam Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Jail Appeal-Release on bail accused-in
jail for 28 years-considering direction of
Hon'ble
High
Court-although
bail
granted-but in absence of security of Rs.
1000000/-could not get the fruit-prayer
for release on execution of personal
bond of Rs. 20,000/-granted-subject to
appearance in concerned police station
on every falling three months.

Held: Para-5
In view of above decision of the Apex
Court as the appellant has been in jail for
such a long time., it would be difficult for
him to arrange for personal sureties for
him. We, therefore direct the trial Court
Judge to comply with our order. We
direct
that
the
appellant
shall
be
released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for Rs.20,000/-. However,
he is required to appear at the police
station Sadar Bazar, Jhansi after every
three months. In case of failure to
appear at the police station as directed
above,
it
would
be
open
to
the
authorities of the court concerned to
take steps for cancellation of his bail.

Case Law discussed:
(1978)4 SCC 47; (1980) 1 SCC 81.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant/applicant and the learned AGA.

2. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that this Court
had passed an order on 7.10.2013
directing the appellant, who had been in
jail for 28 years, to be enlarged on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
However, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi passed an
order on 23.10.2013 pursuant to our order
dated 7.10.2013 that the appellant Ratan
Lal be released in ST No. 46 of 1986
under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi on a personal
bond for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and
two sureties of the like amount.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that as the appellant could not
arrange for said sureties, he could not be
released on bail. Therefore, the said order
is clear violation of order dated 7.10.2013
passed by this Court. In the said order for
releasing the appellant on bail, a personal
bond was required to be furnished.

4. In Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of
M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47 and Hussainara
Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC
81
the
Apex
Court
has
reproached
subordinate Courts for considering the
obligation to pay a sum of money on
forfeiture of the bonds or sureties for nonappearance to be the only means for
enforcing the attendance of the accused to
face trial or to receive sentence, and for
fixing bail amounts only in terms of the
nature of the crime, which approach favours
the wealthy and discriminates against the
impecunious litigant, and eschews other
criteria, such as the roots of an accused in the
community, his financial standing, or other
features, such as the incapacity of an accused
to abscond on account of his young or old
age, or being a woman, or physically infirm
or ailing. For failure of a penurious accused
to arrange for the heavy bail amount or local
sureties, he is forced to remain in jail for long
periods of time even after being granted bail.
Krishna Iyer J speaking for the bench in
paragraph 30 in Moti Ram (supra) has
directed: "Even so, poor men-Indians are in
3 All] Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1577
monetary terms indigents, young persons,
infirm individuals and women are weak
categories and courts should be liberal in
releasing them on their own recognisances
put whatever reasonable condition you may."

5. In view of above decision of the
Apex Court as the appellant has been in
jail for such a long time., it would be
difficult for him to arrange for personal
sureties for him. We, therefore direct the
trial Court Judge to comply with our
order. We direct that the appellant shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for Rs.20,000/-. However,
he is required to appear at the police
station Sadar Bazar, Jhansi after every
three months. In case of failure to appear
at the police station as directed above, it
would be open to the authorities of the
court concerned to take steps for
cancellation of his bail.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, CJ.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1933 of 2013

Om Prakash.. .Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajeev Giri

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.R. Shukla, Sri V.C. Naik, Sri
Vivek Pandey

High
Court
Rules-Chapter
VIII-Rule-5Special
Appeal-against
order
issuance
notice-order
involving
question
of
jurisdiction-within meaning of judgmentheld-special
appeal
maintainable-mere
issue notice can not be treated as tied up or
part-heard-after change of roster learned
Single Judge ceased with every jurisdictionexcept the jurisdiction assigned by roster
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice-order passed
by Single Judge-set-a-side-consequential
direction issued.

Held: Para-12
In Prof. Y.C. Simhadri (supra), it has
been held by the Division Bench that the
contempt jurisdiction is an independent
jurisdiction of an original nature whether
emanating from the Contempt of Courts
Act
or
under
Article
215
of
the
Constitution of India. Consequently, it
has
been
held
that
where
the
assumption of jurisdiction by the learned
Single Judge is contrary to the Rules of
the Court, the order would be appealable
under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent as
continued by Clause 15 of the United
Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation)
Order, 1948 and Rule 5 of Chapter VIII
of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Such an order involving the exercise of
jurisdiction not vested in the learned
Single Judge has been held to fall within
the
definition
of
the
expression
'judgment' since it decides a matter of
moment or affects the vital and valuable
rights of the parties, thereby working
serious injustice as explained in the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah
Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania &
Anr.5.

Case Law discussed:
Prof. Y.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. &
Ors Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak, Suudent; Sanjay
Kumar Srivastava Vs. Acting Chief Justice &
Ors.; Awadh Naresh Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors; State of Rajashthan Vs. Prakash Chand;
Prof. Y.C. Simhadra(supra); Shah Babulal
Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. This special appeal has been filed
by the eighth respondent, who is the