# Singh v. Prescribed Authority, AIR

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-prescribed-authority-air-39491
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3All] Sri Kuldeep Singh and others V. State of U.P. through Trade Tax Officer and another 147

was upheld and the Suit decreed. The
dispute before the Payment of Wages
Authority was only confined to the
question whether Anwar Khan had been
wrongly denied wages or some wages
were due to him, and this was founded
upon the decree wherein it had been held
that his age of superannuation was 60
years. The jurisdiction exercised by the
Appellate Authority, whose order was the
subject-matter of challenge in the writ
petition was, therefore, referable to an Act
made by the Parliament with reference to
Entries 23 and 24 of the Concurrent List
and not to Entry 47 of the Union List.
Learned Counsel has referred to two
decisions of this Court in Yuvraj Dutta
Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, AIR
1968 Alld 305, and State of U.P. Vs. B.N.
Singh, AIR 1971 Alld 359, in support of
submission that the special appeal in
maintainable.
We
have
carefully
considered the authorities cited and, in
our opinion, they do not at all deal with
the
controversy
involved
here,
We,
therefore,
find
substance
in
the
preliminary objection that the special
appeal is not maintainable.

6. The Special appeal is accordingly
dismissed summarily at the admission
stage.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( -& *8
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -
37$ -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6UL .XOGHHS 6LQJK DQG RWKHUV«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 7UDGH
7D[ 2IILFHU DQRWKHU
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
0U $. 5DWKRUH

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI
,QGLD ZKHQ WKH ILUVW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHSRUW
GLVFORVHV
WKH
FRQJQL]DEOH
RIIHQFH
LW
FDQQRW
EH TXDVKHG 7KH TXHVWLRQ RI
H[DPLQLQJ WKH WUXWKIXOQHVV RU RWKHUZLVH
RI WKH DOOHJDWLRQV PDGH LQ ),5 LV QRW WR
EH JRQH E\ WKH &RXUW EXW LW LV WR EH
H[DPLQHG E\ WKH ,QYHVWLJDWLQJ $JHQF\
+HOG2SDUD ±
,Q DSSURSULDWH FDVHV LI WKH &RXUW LV
FRQYLQFHG WKDW WKH SRZHU RI DUUHVW ZLOO
EH H[HUFLVHG ZURQJO\ RU PDODILGHO\ RU LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ D RI WKH
&RGH
RI
&ULPLQDO
3URFHGXUH
ZULW
RI
PDGDPXV FDQ EH LVVXHG UHVWUDLQLQJ WKH
SROLFH IURP PLVXVLQJ LWV OHJDO SRZHU
+RZHYHU WKH RUGHU RI VWD\LQJ DUUHVW PD\
EH JUDQWHG VSDULQJO\ LQ WKH H[FHSWLRQDO
FDVHV

By the Court

1. In the above noted writ petitions
common questions of law are involved.
Therefore, all the writ petitions are taken
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

148
up together for disposal regarding which
the learned counsel for the petitioners of
each petition have no objection.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioners in each petition, the
learned A.G.A. and have gone through the
record.

3. It was contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R.
has been lodged on wrong facts. Having
gone through the first Information Report
of the respective writ petition we find that
First Information Report of each case
discloses
commission
of
congnizable
offence. It is well settled law when the
First Information Report discloses a
congnizable offence, the truthfulness of
the allegation and the establishment of the
guilt can only take place, When the
investigation is done or trial proceeds.
The probability or genuineness of the
allegations made in the First Information
Report cannot be gone into in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, we find
no ground for quashing of the impugned
First Information Reports.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioners relying on judgement of this
Court in M. S. Krishna Traders Kanpur
Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1037 of
1999 decided on 2nd February, 2000)
reported in 2000 UPTC 274 contended
that in view of Section 14 of Trade Tax
Act., the Trade Tax Authority had no
jurisdiction to lodge report and the report
lodged by Trade Tax Authority is
patently without any cause and is an
abuse of the process of criminal law. But
it was held in Subsequent Division Bench
case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2059 of 2000 decided on 28.04.2000
that it seems to us that the attention of the
Bench was not drawn to express provision
of Sec. 14 of the Trade Tax and its finer
notes to find out whether the penalty
provided there of is without prejudice to
the liability under any other law for the
time being in force. ......Decisions relied
upon do not merit to be of any binding
efficacy nor can be termed as decision ad
rem " Moreover, the said decision in
M/s. Krishna Traders Kanpur Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) was based on decision of this
Court in New J.T.C. Corporation New
Delhi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1999
U.P.T.C. 1226. The Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.3380 of 2000 State of U.P. and
Others Vs. M/s. New J.T.C. Corporation
decided on 11.05.2000 set aside the above
judgement and held as below:-

"After hearing both sides we think that
investigating agency must be permitted to
complete the investigation and file the
final report. We refrain from expressing
any opinion regarding the merits of the
contentions, lest, they may affect one or
the other of the parties. However, while
setting aside the impugned order, we
make it clear that the part of the impugned
order by which the truck was released will
not be affected by this order. It is open to
either party to raise all their contentions at
the appropriate stage. Therefore, we
dispose of his appeal without prejudice to
such rights."

5. In view of above decision of
Apex Court the decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is not
binding on us.

6. It was further contended that the
arrest of the petitioners may be stayed
3All] Smt. Swarn Manjal V. State of U.P. and another 149

during investigation. We have
already above found that the First
Information Report disclose cognizable
offence and therefore F.I.R. can not be
quashed. It has been held by Full Bench
of this Court in Satya Pal and others vs.
State of U.P. 2000(40) ACC, 75, that in
appropriate cases, if the Court is
convinced that the power of arrest will
be exercised wrongly or mala-fidely or
in violation of Section 41 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, writ of
mandamus can be issued restraining the
police from misusing its legal power.
However, the order of Staying arrest may
be granted sparingly in the exceptional
cases and with circumspection that too in
rarest of rare cases keeping in mind that
any relief, interim or final during
investigation which has the tendency to
slow
or
otherwise

hamper

the
investigation should not be granted.

7. As already pointed out above the
question of examining truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
First Information Report is not to be gone
into by this Court, as the same is to be
determined by the investigating Agency
during investigation. We hope and trust
that the Investigating Agency shall act
honestly, fairly and independently while
making investigation and take legal
recourse against the petitioner only when
it is necessary to do so.

8. Lastly it was contended that goods
seized may be released in favour of the
petitioners. But no such prayer has been
made in any of the writ petition.
Moreover, order for interim custody of
the goods may be made by the Court
having jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the case and the petitioners are at liberty
to make such prayer before appropriate
Court.

9. The above writ petition nos. 4167
of 2000, 4257 of 2000, 4258 of 2000 4283
of 2000, 4289 of 2000 and 4299 of 2000
are
dismissed
with
the
aforesaid
observations.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

6PW 6ZDUQ 0DQMDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DJKXELU 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SS 3DUWLHV
$*$

6HFWLRQ &U3&2WKH 0DJLVWUDWH
KDV SRZHU WR UHFDOO WKH VXPPRQLQJ RUGHU
SDVVHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ &U3& DQG FDQ
GLVFKDUJH WKH DFFXVHG RQ WKH UHTXHVW RI
WKH DFFXVHG WKDW QR RIIHQFH LV GLVFORVHG
DJDLQVW
WKHP DQG WKH SURVHFXWLRQ LV
EDUUHG E\ DQ\ ODZ IRU WKH WLPH EHLQJ
HQIRUFHG

By the Court

1. This is a revision under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. The facts giving rise to
this revision are as follows:

2. The opposite party no.2 filed a
complaint against the revisionist and three
other for offences under Section 406
I.P.C. and 138 N.I. Act which was case