# Shakir Ali v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2004
- **Bench:** Virendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakir-ali-v-the-state-of-u-p-46765
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
374(2)
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860
-
Section
307/34 - Challenge to- due to previous
enmity, appellants fired arms to PW-1 to
settle the case- a criminal case was
pending against PW-1- 18 hrs. delay in
FIR-PW-2 (father) statement is selfcontradictory-P.W.-2 is not an eyewitness whereas the statement of P.W.-
1 is self -contradictory and unreliable as
he, even after receiving such injury, had
fled away from the place of occurrence
and neither lodged any report at any
police station situated on the way to
hospital through which he passed or
received any medical treatment to any
nearest hospital. Prosecution did not
examine other witnesses who were
present at the time of occurrence- FIR
based on false and fabricated story-the
prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellants. The appellants
are entitled for acquittal.(Para 16 to 27)

B. First information report in a criminal
case is an extremely vital and valuable
piece of evidence for the purpose of
corroborating the oral evidence adduced
at the trial. The importance of the above
report can hardly be overestimated from
the standpoint of the accused. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging
of the report to the police in respect of
commission of an offence is to obtain
early
information
regarding
the
circumstances in which the crime was
committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as
well as the names of eyewitnesses
present at the scene of occurrence.
Delay in lodging the first information
report
quite
often
results
in
embellishment which is a creature of
afterthought. On account of delay, the
report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps
in
of
the
introduction
of
coloured
version,
exaggerated
account
or
concocted
story
as
a
result
of
deliberation and consultation. It is,
therefore, essential that the delay in the
lodging of the first information report
should be satisfactorily explained.(Para
24)

The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

Thulia Kali Vs St. of T. N., (1972) 3 SCC 393

## Text

1 All. Shakir Ali Vs. The State of U.P.
1279
this judgment for compliance. The office is
directed to provide the copy of the
judgment separately to all the appellants
promptly. The office is further directed to
enter the judgment in compliance register
maintained for the purpose of the Court.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1279
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2004
Connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 1324 of 2004

Shakir Ali ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rishad Murtaza, Nadeem Murtaza

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
374(2)
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860
-
Section
307/34 - Challenge to- due to previous
enmity, appellants fired arms to PW-1 to
settle the case- a criminal case was
pending against PW-1- 18 hrs. delay in
FIR-PW-2 (father) statement is selfcontradictory-P.W.-2 is not an eyewitness whereas the statement of P.W.-
1 is self -contradictory and unreliable as
he, even after receiving such injury, had
fled away from the place of occurrence
and neither lodged any report at any
police station situated on the way to
hospital through which he passed or
received any medical treatment to any
nearest hospital. Prosecution did not
examine other witnesses who were
present at the time of occurrence- FIR
based on false and fabricated story-the
prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellants. The appellants
are entitled for acquittal.(Para 16 to 27)

B. First information report in a criminal
case is an extremely vital and valuable
piece of evidence for the purpose of
corroborating the oral evidence adduced
at the trial. The importance of the above
report can hardly be overestimated from
the standpoint of the accused. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging
of the report to the police in respect of
commission of an offence is to obtain
early
information
regarding
the
circumstances in which the crime was
committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as
well as the names of eyewitnesses
present at the scene of occurrence.
Delay in lodging the first information
report
quite
often
results
in
embellishment which is a creature of
afterthought. On account of delay, the
report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps
in
of
the
introduction
of
coloured
version,
exaggerated
account
or
concocted
story
as
a
result
of
deliberation and consultation. It is,
therefore, essential that the delay in the
lodging of the first information report
should be satisfactorily explained.(Para
24)

The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

Thulia Kali Vs St. of T. N., (1972) 3 SCC 393

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Both the aforesaid appeals have
been preferred against the judgment and
order
dated
25.05.2004,
passed
by
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
F.T.C. Court No.4, Hardoi, in Sessions
Trial No.499 of 2002, arising out of Case
Crime No.92 of 2001, P.S.-Pachdevra,
District-Hardoi, whereby the appellantsNabi Sher and Nabi Hasan of Criminal
Appeal No.1324 of 2004 and appellantShakir Ali of Criminal Appeal No.1330 of
2004 have been convicted and sentenced
for five years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.5000/- each for offence under
Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Since both the above said criminal
appeals have been preferred against the
aforesaid judgment and order, both appeals
have been heard jointly and are being decided
by common judgment.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that
Shakir Ali (P.W.-1), son of Shakkar Ali (P.W.-
2), was resident of Village-Chandpur, P.S.-
Pachdevra, District-Hardoi. The appellantsNabi Sher and Nabi Hasan son of Sitaram were
also resident of same village, but before two
years of the occurrence, they had migrated to
Village-Angwa, P.S.-Sahabad, District-Hardoi.
The appellant-Shakir Ali is brother-in-law (Jija)
of appellant-Nabi Sher. There was a previous
enmity between Nabi Sher and Shakir Ali
(P.W.-1) as criminal case was lodged by the
appellant-Nabi Sher for causing grievous hurt
against Shakir Ali (P.W.-1).

4. On 19.09.2001, Shakil Ali (P.W.-1)
was sitting in his village near the house of one
Rajendra, situated towards southern side of
village and Deshraj son of Ramdin Kushwaha,
Bhaiya Lal son of Buddhi Lal Pal and Ganga
Singh son of Taule Kushwaha were also
present there. Meanwhile, at about 12:00 p.m.
at noon, the appellants-Nabi Sher, Nabi Hasan
and the appellant-Shakir Ali (hereinafter
referred to as appellants) along with two
unknown persons came there with illegal arms,
with intention to cause death and due to
previous enmity, they fired fire around at Shakir
Ali (P.W.-1). Shakir Ali (P.W.-1), to save his
life, fled away from the place of occurrence and
reached Village-Nagla Hussain from where
Ram Kumar Telli, resident of Village-Nagla
Hussain and one Chhote Bhaiya Singh, resident
of Village-Pakda, took him (P.W.-1) via Kath
(town) to District Headquarter-Sahanjahapur
and therefrom to Primary Health Centre
Sahabad, where he (P.W.-1) was given first aid
treatment and thereafter he was carried to
District Hospital, Hardoi for medical treatment.
On hearing the noise and receiving the
information, Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2) who was
present at his house, reached at the place of
occurrence and was told by people, present on
the spot, that his son, Shakir Ali (P.W.-1)
received fire arm injuries, shot by the appellants
and had fled away from the place of occurrence.
Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2) rushed to police stationPachdevra and lodged a first information report
(Ext.Ka-1) (in short F.I.R.) at 6:45 a.m. On
20.09.2001. The investigation of the case was
entrusted to S.I. Shivpal (P.W.-4).

5. Dr. J. L. Gautam, Emergency Medical
Officer, Civil Hospital, Hardoi, examined the
injuries of Shakir Ali (P.W.-1), who was
brought by Ram Kumar resident of VillageNagla Husain, P.S.-Pachdevra, on 19.09.2001
at 11:30 p.m.. According to him, the following
injuries were found on the body of the injured :

"(1) Firearm wound of entry size 2.0 cm
x1.0 cm x depth not proved present on abdomen
6.0 cm above umblicus at 12"0 clock margin
inverted lacerated.

(2) Firearm wound of exit size 5.0 cm x
3.0 cm x communicating with injury no.1
present on left side of abdomen, 6.5 cm away
from umblicus at 3'0 clock margins everted,
lacerated illegible.

(3) Black scabed depressed abraded
wound 0.3 cm in diameter x depth not proved
present on left arm middle part.
1 All. Shakir Ali Vs. The State of U.P.
1281

(4) Multiple Black scabed depressed
abraded wounds size 0.3 cm in diameter x
depth not probed to 2.00 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle
deep gutter wound present on right leg from
knee to ankle joint dried blood clots present.
Soft scab over wound tissues present."

6. According to this witness (P.W.-3)
the case was referred from Primary Health
Centre, Sahabad and the aforesaid injuries
were kept under observation as it would
have been caused by fire arms like
Tamancha and was half day old. According
to him further, injuries nos.1 and 2 were
from back to left side whereas rest injuries
were from front to back side. He (P.W.-3)
further stated that all injuries of P.W.-1
were noted by him in injury report (Ext.-
Ka-2) and the said injury might be caused
at 12"o clock on 19.09.2001.

7. S.I. Shivpal Singh (P.W.-4), during
investigation,
inspected
the
place
of
occurrence, prepared the site plan (Ext.-ka5), recorded the statement of witnesses and
after completion of investigation, filed
charge sheet against the appellants, before
the concerned Magistrate, who took the
cognizance and since the offence was
exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, after providing the copy of
relevant police papers as required under
Section 207 of the Code, committed the
case to the Court of Sessions, Hardoi for
trial.

8. The learned trial Court, after
hearing the counsel for both the parties,
framed charges for the offence under
Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
against the appellants from which they
denied and claimed for trial.

9. The prosecution, in order to prove
its case, examined Shakir Ali (P.W.-1),
Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2), Dr. Z. L. Gautam
Devi (P.W.-3) and S.I. Shivpal Singh
(P.W.-4). So far as documentary evidence
is concerned, first information report (Ext.-
Ka-1) was proved by Shakir Ali (P.W.-1),
injury report (Ext.-Ka-2) was proved by Dr.
Z. L. Gautam (P.W.-3), Chik-F.I.R. (Ext.-
ka-3), G. D. Report (Ext.-Ka-4), site plan
(Ext.-Ka5) and charge sheet (Ext.-Ka-6)
were proved by S.I. Shivpal Singh (P.W.-
4).

10. After conclusion of prosecution
evidence, the statement of appellants were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code,
who denied the prosecution evidence and
stated that they had been falsely implicated.

11. Learned trial Court, after
conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced
the appellants vide impugned judgment and
order. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order as above, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.

12. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Dhananjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.
for the State.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the appellants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
due to previous enmity of criminal
proceeding, lodged against Shakir Ali
(P.W.-1) by the appellants, in order to
create undue pressure to settle it. Learned
counsel further submitted that independent
witnesses, present on the spot including
Ram Kumar who accompanied the injured
from the place of occurrence to District
Hospital, Hardoi were also not examined
by the prosecution. Learned counsel further
submitted that an F.I.R. was lodged by
delay of 18 hrs. whereas concerned police
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
station is situated only six kms. away from
the place of occurrence and the prosecution
has not placed any explanation in this
regard. Learned counsel further submitted
that Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2) is not an eyewitness whereas the statement of Shakir Ali
(P.W.-1)
is
self
contradictory
and
unreliable as he, even after receiving such
injury, had fled away from the place of
occurrence and neither lodged any report at
any police station situated on the way to
hospital through which he passed or
received any medical treatment to any
nearest hospital. Learned counsel further
submitted that the statements of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 are self contradictory. Learned
counsel further submitted that the trial
Court, without considering the material on
record, passed the impugned judgment in
cursory manner, which is liable to be set
aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on the law laid down by Supreme Court in
Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972)
3 SCC 393.

14. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
vehemently opposed and submitted that the
prosecution
case
is
wholly
reliable.
Learned A.G.A. further submitted that
Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2), father of Shakir Ali
(P.W.-1), got information regarding the
said
occurrence,
lodged
the
first
information report without any delay.
Learned A.G.A. further submitted that
Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2) is illiterate person
and due to geographical condition of the
said police station, the F.I.R. was lodged at
6"o clock on next day. Learned A.G.A.
further submitted that Shakir Ali (P.W.-1)
is injured witness and his evidence cannot
be brushed aside for want of independent
witness. Learned A.G.A. further submitted
that every effort was made to save the life
of Shakir Ali (P.W.-1) as the appellants
were chasing him, hence, failure to take
any
medical
treatment
at
District
Headquarter, Sahajahapur will not affect
the
credibility
of
prosecution
story.
Learned A.G.A. further submitted that
there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment and order, the appeal lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

15. I have considered the rival
submissions made by both the parties and
perused the record.

16. Shakir Ali (P.W.-1), sole star
witness, supporting the prosecution story,
has stated that before two years of the said
occurrence, an occurrence was happened
between the appellants-Nabi Sher and Nabi
Hasan with him and criminal case was
lodged against him (P.W.-1) by the
appellant-Nabi Sher, which was pending at
the time of occurrence. He further stated
that at the time of occurrence, at about
12:00 p.m. (noon), he was present, nearby
trolly, situated in front of Rajendra's house
; Ganga Singh and Deshraj were sitting in
the trolly and Bhaiya Lal was sitting at
floor. He further stated that meanwhile all
the appellants along with two unknown
persons, carrying firearms, appeared there
and
exhorted
to
kill
him
(P.W.-1)
whereupon all the appellants and two
unknown persons fired at him. He further
stated that fire made by the appellant-Nabi
Sher hit his stomach whereas fire made by
the appellants-Nabi Hasan and Shakir Ali
hit his leg and hands. He further stated that
he did not know whether fire made by
unknown persons caused any injury to him
(P.W.-1) or not. He further stated that he
rushed to the house of Rajendra and
thereafter via house of one Prithvi Pal, he
reached at his house. He further stated that
the appellants chased him upto crossing,
situated in front of Govardhan's house. He
further stated that thereafter he reached at
1 All. Shakir Ali Vs. The State of U.P.
1283
the house of one Ram Kumar Telli, resident
of Nagla Husain and lay there wherefrom
Ram Kumar and Bade Bhaiya, resident of
Village-Pakda and Brij Lal carried him to a
Kuriyan
Kala
via
Ram
Kheda
and
thereafter they reached at Kath. He further
stated that he was carried to districtSahajahapur by jeep and thereafter to
Primary Health Centre, Sahabad where first
aid was given to him. He further stated that
he was referred to District Hospital, Hardoi
where his injuries were examined and x-ray
was also conducted. He further stated when
his father (P.W.-2) reached at hospital, he
came to know that first information report
was lodged.

17. Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2), father of
Shakir
Ali
(P.W.-1),
narrating
the
prosecution story as stated by P.W.-1, has
stated that at the time of occurrence, he was
picking up "urad fali" at the door of his
house. He further stated that Bhaiya Lal,
Deshraj and Ganga Singh were present at
the place of occurrence and had seen the
occurrence. Stating that his son (P.W.-1)
had fled away to his house, he also reached
at his house. He further stated that he had
lodged the first information report (Ext.-
Ka-1).

18. The prosecution did not examine
Ganga Singh, Deshraj and Bhaiya Lal, who
were present at the time of occurrence with
Shakir Ali (P.W.-1). It has not examined
Rajendra in front of whose house, the
occurrence was taken place and after the
occurrence, P.W.-1 entered into his house
to save his life. It has also not examined
Ram Kumar, Bade Bhaiya and Brij Lal,
who carried P.W.-1 to district hospital,
Hardoi
via
Kuriyan
Kala,
Kath,
Sahajahapur and Sahabad. The prosecution
has also not examined the radiologist who
conducted x-ray examination of Shakir Ali
(P.W.-1). It has also not examined the
Constable, who prepared Chik-F.I.R. (Ext.-
Ka-3) and entered the information (Ext.-
Ka-1) in G. D. Report (Ext.-Ka-6). The
prosecution has not placed any explanation
as to why the aforesaid important witnesses
were withheld and only one witness of fact
i.e. injured-Shakir Ali was produced. The
record further shows that the crossexamination of Dr. Z. L. Gautam (P.W.-3)
was closed by the trial Court without
affording any opportunity to cross-examine
him. From perusal of the record, it further
transpires that the appellants' counsel,
before trial Court, had filed an application
to recall P.W.-3 for cross-examination on
the ground that the cross-examination of
P.W.-3
could
not
be
conducted
as
advocates were abstaining from work due
to condolence but the trial Court dismissed
the said application on the ground that
P.W.-3 was only formal witness.

19. Now the question arises whether
the
prosecution
evidence,
based
on
testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, is reliable
or not.

20. P.W.-1 is injured witness. His first
medical aid, according to him, was
provided
at
Primary
Health
Centre,
Sahabad but the prosecution has not placed
any documentary evidence as to whether or
not any treatment was given to P.W.-1 at
Primary
Health
Centre,
Sahabad.
According to Dr. Z. L. Gautam (P.W.-3) he
had examined P.W.-1 at 11:35 p.m. i.e.
after twelve hours of the occurrence. P.W.-
1 has stated that fire arm injury was caused
at his stomach, leg and hands and after the
occurrence, he fled away from the place of
occurrence and entered into one Rajendra's
house, reached at his own house via Prithvi
Pal's house and also reached to VillageNagla Hussain at Ram Kumar's house
1284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where he lay down. According to him, he
reached at District Hospital-Hardoi via
Ram
Kheda,
Kuriyan
Kala,
Kath,
Sahajahapur
and
Sahabad.
In
crossexamination, he admitted that during his
journey, he neither gave any information
nor took any treatment at any place. He
further admitted that he was lying at the
door of Raj Kumar's house for two hours.
He further stated that Hardoi, Sahajahapur
road is stituated 35-36 kms. away from his
Village-Chandpur and Kath where police
station is also situated, is situated 4-5 ''kosh'
(8-10 miles). He further stated that he
reached at Sahabad at 6:30-7:00 p.m. ;
Sahabad police station is situated at main
road ; he had narrated the incident to police
of police station Sahabad but had not given
any written report. He further stated that he
did not know whether or not his report was
lodged at P.S.-Sahabad.

21. In addition to above, the conduct
and statement of this witness are also
doubtful because according to him even
after receiving serious injuries in his leg
and stomach, he ran from the place of
occurrence and entered into the house of
one person, thereafter gone to his house
and therefrom reached another village and
lay down there. Thus, according to him,
after the occurrence, he had gone also to his
own house but his father Shakkar Ali
(P.W.-2) had stated that information of the
occurrence was received by him from
unknown person. In view of the said
contradiction, the statement and conduct of
P.W.-1 become doubtful.

22. The first information report was
lodged by Shakkar Ali (P.W.-2) , father of
Shakir Ali (P.W.-1). Admittedly, he is not
eye-witness. In cross-examination, he has
stated that he could not reach at the place of
occurrence and when he was on the way to
place of occurrence, the people told that his
son had escaped from the place of
occurrence. Stating that he could not see
the place of occurrence, he further stated
that he could not tell the name of persons
who narrated to him the occurrence. He
further stated that he could not meet the
boy who had informed him regarding the
occurrence. Stating that he had given the
information at concerned police station at
1:00 a.m. (night), he further stated that the
said occurrence took place in the evening.

23. The first information report,
although is neither substantive piece of
evidence
nor
encyclopedia
of
the
occurrence, is important step of the
prosecution
to
initiate
the
criminal
machinery in order to collect the evidence.
Although, there is no prescribed proforma
for lodging the F.I.R. and also no time limit
is provided to lodge the same but if it is
lodged by the inordinate delay without any
explanation, it creates doubt in the
prosecution story.

24. In Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, 1972) 3 SCC 393 where the first
information report was lodged by delay of
twenty two hours, Supreme Court has held
as under :

"First information report in a criminal
case is an extremely vital and valuable
piece of evidence for the purpose of
corroborating the oral evidence adduced at
the trial. The importance of the above
report can hardly be overestimated from
the standpoint of the accused. The object of
insisting upon prompt lodging of the report
to the police in respect of commission of an
offence is to obtain early information
regarding the circumstances in which the
crime was committed, the names of the
actual culprits and the part played by them
1 All. Shakir Ali Vs. The State of U.P.
1285
as well as the names of eyewitnesses
present at the scene of occurrence. Delay
in lodging the first information report quite
often results in embellishment which is a
creature of afterthought. On account of
delay, the report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in
of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as
a result of deliberation and consultation. It
is, therefore, essential that the delay in the
lodging of the first information report
should be satisfactorily explained."

25. Coming to the facts of this case,
according to P.W.-2, he had received the
information of the occurrence just at the
time of occurrence. Admittedly, the first
information
report
was
lodged
on
20.09.2001
at
6:
45
a.m.
whereas
occurrence was taken place at 12:00 p.m.
on 19.09.2001. Thus, the F.I.R. was lodged
by delay of 18 hours. In Ext.-Ka-3, the
distance of place of occurrence from
concerned police station is only six kms.
P.W.-2, in his cross-examination, has not
placed any plausible explanation as to why
he had not lodged the first information
report at any reasonable time just after the
occurrence on 19.09.2001. His admission,
in
cross-examination,
that
the
said
occurrence took place in evening, further
creates doubt in the prosecution story.
Although,
he
has
stated
in
crossexamination that he had given information
at 1:00 a.m. in the night but this fact is not
supported by any documentary evidence
and even he had not explained as to why he
had lodged first information report at 1:00
a.m. in the night i.e. by delay of 13 hrs.

26. Thus, in the light of above
discussion, it is clear that there was
enmity
between
P.W.-1
and
the
appellants due to enmity of criminal case,
lodged against P.W.-1 by the appellantsNabi
Sher
and
Nabi
Hasan.
The
prosecution has also failed to produce the
independent witnesses, present at the
spot, including the witness who carried
the P.W.-1 to hospital and remained
present with him for more than twelve
hours since his departure from the place
of occurrence till his arrival at District
Hospital,
Harodi.
The
conduct
and
evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who
were inimical to the appellants, are not
trustworthy. Their statement regarding
the time of occurrence as admitted by
P.W.-2 that it was happened in the
evening, is also contradictory with the
statement of P.W.-1. Non filing of first
information report at any police station
i.e. Kath or Sahabad and failure to take
medical aid for nearly 12 hrs by P.W.-1,
further creates doubt in the prosecution
story. In addition to above filing of first
information report by delay of more than
18
hrs.
without
any
reasonable
explanation
also
has
made
the
prosecution case doubtful. Learned trial
Court, without considering the aforesaid
fact of the prosecution story, passed the
impugned judgment and order in cursory
manner.

27. Thus, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellants.
The appellants-Shakir Ali, Nabi Sher and
Nabi Hasan are entitled for acquittal and
both the appeals are liable to be allowed.

28. In view of the above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by
trial Court is set aside. Both the Criminal
Appeal No.1330 of 2004 (Shakir Ali vs.
State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal
No.1324 of 2004 (Nabi Sher and another
vs. State of U.P.) are allowed. All the
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants-Shakir Ali, Nabi Sher and Nabi
Hasan are acquitted. They are on bail. Their
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

29. Keeping in view the provision of
Section 437-A of the Code, appellantsShakir Ali, Nabi Sher and Nabi Hasan are
hereby directed forthwith to furnish a
personal bond of a sum of Rs.20,000/-
each and two reliable sureties each of the
like amount before the trial Court, which
shall be effective for a period of six
months, along with an undertaking that in
the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against this judgment or for grant
of leave, they, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

30. A copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be sent to trial
Court by FAX for immediate compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1286
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ-B No. 6567 of 2006

Ram Niwas ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Mahamaya Nagar & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Chandra Yadav, Sri Ram Snehi
Yadav, Rekha Singh, Sri Vijendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Aditya Narayan, Sri Anil Kumar
Aditya, Sri R.C. Tiwari
A. Civil Law - - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Re-opening of
proceedings of chak allotment - It was not
open for a subsequent transferee to reopen proceedings of chak allotment which
had
attained
finality
against
his
predecessor in interest, the revision itself
was not maintainable and for the same reason
the impugned revisional order, which allows the
revision
cannot
be
sustained
and
must
necessarily be set aside. (Para 6)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Present petition assails the order dated
27.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner arises out of the
proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks
a writ of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on a revision filed
by the respondents.

3. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the revision filed by
the
contesting
respondents
was
not
maintainable. It has been submitted that the
order of the Settlement Consolidation
Officer challenged before the revisional
court was dated 05.09.2004. The revision
itself has been filed after the contesting
respondents obtained a sale deed of the
entire chak of Shri Suresh Chandra on
08.11.2005. It is also contended that the
order dated 05.09.2004 had attained finality
against Suresh Chandra and, therefore, the
contesting
respondents,
who
was
a
transferee from Suresh Chandra, after the
chak allotment in favour of Suresh Chand