# Smt. Geeta Rakesh v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 637
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6107 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-rakesh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-49671
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860
- Sections 120-B, 188, 363, 370(3),
370(5)
&
370(7)
-
Immoral
Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 9 - UP
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Rules, 1993
- Rule 38 - Prevention of Children from
Sexual Offence Act, 2012 - Sections 16 &
17 - Indian Evidence Act, 1972 - S. 65B(4) - Appeal against conviction and
Sentence - Sustainability - Allegation of
releasing 43 inmates alongwith their
children
was
leveled
against
the
Superintendent - Detention period of one
year was to expire on 20.05.2017 - F.I.R.
was lodged on the report of Deputy Chief
Probation Officer saying that detention
period was extended by order dated
18.05.2017, which was not complied with
- Defense of lack of knowledge and no
service of order dated 18.05.2017 was
contended
-
Relevance
-
Held,
the
prosecution has failed to establish that
the order dated 18.5.2017 was served
upon
the
accused
appellant or
was
received in the office of Superintendent,
Government Women Protection Home,
Agra prior to 24.5.2017 by when the
inmates had been released - The 43
inmates were released alongwith their
eight children. The released inmates were
natural guardian of these eight minor
children - Release of inmates upon expiry
of the detainment period would not
amount to
any offence
as
per the
provisions of the Act of 1956. (Para 54,
60, 61, 70 and 71)
Appeal allowed .(E-1)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,810 of 100,012. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39810 for what follows._

1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
637
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of accused appellant beyond all reasonable
doubts. The appellant who has already
undergone more than twelve years of actual
incarceration is entitled to the benefit of
doubt in the matter.

63. Consequently, the present appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and
order dated 31.7.2012, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre),
Court No.20, Allahabad, dated 31.07.2012,
in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2006, arising out
of Case Crime No.152 of 2005 under
Section 302 IPC, Police Station Khuldabad,
District Allahabad and in Sessions Trial
No. 100 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime
No.169 of 2005, under Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act, Police Station Khuldabad,
District Allahabad, is set aside. Since the
accused appellant is in jail, he shall be set
at liberty, forthwith, unless he is wanted in
any other case, subject to compliance of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 637
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6107 of 2018

Smt. Geeta Rakesh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, Sri Aditya Gupta, Sri
Ashish Malhotra, Sri R.B. Singh, Sri G.S.
Chaturvedi(Senior
Advocate),
Ms.
Saumya
Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Imran Ullah, Sri Faiz Ahmad, Sri Yashdeep
Rastogi, Ms. Nandita Bharti

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860
- Sections 120-B, 188, 363, 370(3),
370(5)
&
370(7)
-
Immoral
Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 9 - UP
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Rules, 1993
- Rule 38 - Prevention of Children from
Sexual Offence Act, 2012 - Sections 16 &
17 - Indian Evidence Act, 1972 - S. 65B(4) - Appeal against conviction and
Sentence - Sustainability - Allegation of
releasing 43 inmates alongwith their
children
was
leveled
against
the
Superintendent - Detention period of one
year was to expire on 20.05.2017 - F.I.R.
was lodged on the report of Deputy Chief
Probation Officer saying that detention
period was extended by order dated
18.05.2017, which was not complied with
- Defense of lack of knowledge and no
service of order dated 18.05.2017 was
contended
-
Relevance
-
Held,
the
prosecution has failed to establish that
the order dated 18.5.2017 was served
upon
the
accused
appellant or
was
received in the office of Superintendent,
Government Women Protection Home,
Agra prior to 24.5.2017 by when the
inmates had been released - The 43
inmates were released alongwith their
eight children. The released inmates were
natural guardian of these eight minor
children - Release of inmates upon expiry
of the detainment period would not
amount to
any offence
as
per the
provisions of the Act of 1956. (Para 54,
60, 61, 70 and 71)
Appeal allowed .(E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya
Gupta as well as Ms. Saumya Chaturvedi
for the appellant; Km. Meena, learned AGA
for the State and Sri Faiz Ahmad and Sri
Yashdeep Rastogi holding brief of Sri
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Imran Ullah on behalf of PW-2 and perused
the records of the present criminal appeal.

2. This criminal appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
6.10.2018, passed by the Special Judge
(POCSO Act)/VIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Agra in Special Trial No. 1848 of
2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of
2017, under Sections 370(3), 370(5),
370(7), 363, 188, 120B IPC; 9 Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 16/17
POCSO Act, Police Station - Etmaddaula,
District Agra; whereby the appellant Smt.
Geeta Rakesh has been convicted under
Section 370(3) IPC and sentenced to 10
years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine
of Rs. 50,000/- and on its failure to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment of six
months;
under
Section
370(5)
IPC
sentenced
to
14
years
rigorous
imprisonment
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
1,00,000/- and on its failure to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment of one
year; under Section 370(7) IPC sentenced
to rigorous life imprisonment alongwith
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on its failure to
undergo additional rigorous imprisonment
of one year; under Section 363 IPC
sentenced
to
five
year
rigorous
imprisonment
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
1,00,000/- and on its failure to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment of one
year; under Section 188 IPC sentenced to
six months simple imprisonment alongwith
fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on its failure to
undergo additional simple imprisonment of
one month; under Section 120B IPC
sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment
alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on its
failure to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment of one year; under Section 9
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act sentenced
to
10
years
rigorous
imprisonment
alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on its
failure to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment of one year; and under
Section 16 read with Section 17 of the
POCSO Act sentenced to rigorous life
imprisonment
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
1,00,000/- and on its failure to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment of one
year. All the sentences are directed to run
separately.

3. Accused appellant Geeta Rakesh was
posted as Superintendent of Government
Protection Home (Women) at Agra. It
transpires that the State Authorities at
Allahabad undertook an exercise referable
to Section 16 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as ''the Act of 1956'), wherein sixty
seven females and thirty seven children
involved in immoral trafficking were
rescued. These rescued victims were then
produced before the magistrate exercising
jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act of
1956, who proceeded to pass an order on
21.5.2016, directing these rescued victims
to be lodged at the Government Protection
Home (Women) at Agra under the care and
control of the accused appellant. The order
dated 21.5.2016 specified the term of
detention of the recovered inmates to be
one year or further orders. As per this order
the detainment period of one year was to
expire on 20.5.2017. The accused appellant
released forty three inmates alongwith their
eight
children
between
21.5.2017
to
23.5.2017 apparently on the ground that the
period of their detainment had come to an
end. Release of these rescued victims by
the appellant has ultimately led to her
prosecution and consequential sentence.
4. It appears that the magistrate, who had
passed the initial order of detainment under
Section 17(4) of the Act of 1956 extended
the period of detainment of these rescued
victims by a further period of two years
1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
639
vide his subsequent order dated 18.5.2017.
This order allegedly was sent by the office
of the concerned magistrate by whatsapp/email and also by registered post. The
primary accusation against the appellant is
that she released the rescued victims in
derogation of the order dated 18.5.2017.

5. The fact of release of these forty
three inmates alongwith their eight children
in
teeth
of
subsequent
order
dated
18.5.2017 was highlighted before the State
authorities by Mr. Sunil Kumar (PW-2).

6. Taking note of the facts brought
before the authorities a first information
report came to be lodged pursuant to a
written report of PW-1 against the accused
appellant under Sections 370, 363, 188,
120B IPC and Section 9 of the Act of 1956
as Case Crime No. 455 of 2017. Upon
conclusion of investigation a charge-sheet
was filed against the accused appellant
which led to her ultimate conviction in
Special Trial No. 1848 of 2017 arising out
of Case Crime No. 455 of 2017, under
Sections 370(3), 370(5), 370(7), 363, 188,
120B IPC; 9 Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station -
Etmaddaula, District Agra and sentence
vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2018,
which is assailed in the present appeal.

7. It was also brought to the notice of
the authorities that the competent court at
Allahabad had earlier passed orders for
release of twenty two out of these 67
victims on 3.2.2017. This order of the
concerned court was challenged in Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3324 of
2017 and the Supreme Court on 13.2.2017
and again on 21.4.2017 directed the
released inmates to be retrieved and lodged
again in Government Protection Home
(Women) at Agra.

8. The prosecution case is that sixty
seven recovered victims were lodged at the
Government Protection Home (Women) at
Agra for a period of one year vide order
dated 21.5.2016. The FIR further records
that the term of detention of these inmates
was extended by a period of two years vide
subsequent order of the magistrate dated
18.5.2017. This subsequent order is alleged
to have been served upon the accused
appellant and its contents were actually
perused/seen by the accused appellant on
her whatsapp on 20.5.2017 itself, yet she
proceeded to release forty three detainees
alongwith their eight children without any
order passed by the magistrate or the
competent court. The action of the accused
appellant in releasing forty three inmates
alongwith their eight children to their
alleged family members/supurdgars after
obtaining
notarial
affidavit
and
undertaking, etc., amounted to offences
under the IPC, POCSO Act and the Act of
1956. The FIR has been registered on the
basis of a written report sent by the Deputy
Chief
Probation
Officer,
Directorate,
Women Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
dated 1.6.2017.

9. The investigation proceeded in the
matter and statement of various witnesses
were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Statement of two inmates, who had yet not
been released, was also recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Various teams were
sent to locate the released inmates but they
were not found at their disclosed addresses
and an inference was drawn that these
inmates may have landed in immoral
trafficking, once again. Doubts were also
expressed
regarding
the
supurdgars'
relationship
with
the
inmates.
The
Investigating
Officer
also
collected
documents
regarding
dispatch
of
subsequent
order
dated
18.5.2017
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extending the term of detainment of these
victims and proceeded to submit a chargesheet against the accused appellant on
21.8.2017. The magistrate took cognizance
on the charge-sheet and committed the case
to the court of sessions. The court of
sessions consequently framed following
charges against the accused appellant:-

"मै,
सुनील
कुमार
ग्रमश्र,
ग्रवशेष
न्यायािीश/ (Pocso Act) /अपर सत्र न्यायािीश,
न्यायालय सोंख्या-17, आगरा आप गीता राकेश
क ग्रनम्न आर प से आर ग्रपत करता हाँः-

प्रथमः यह ग्रक राजकीय सोंरक्षण गृह
(मग्रहला), आगरा की अिीग्रक्षका के पद पर
रहते हुये आपक उप ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्, सदर
इलाहाबाद के आदेश ग्रदनाोंक 21.05.2016 के
तहत 67 पीग्रडताएों और 37 बच्च क एक
साल या अग्रिम आदेश तक के ग्रलये नारी
सोंरक्षण गृह (मग्रहला), आगरा में आवाग्रसत
ग्रकये जाने का आदेश ग्रदया गया था। इनमें से
22 पीग्रडताओों क अपर सत्र न्यायािीश,
इलाहाबाद के आदेश से मुक्त कर ग्रदया गया
था। उप ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्, सदर, इलाहाबाद ने
अपने आदेश ग्रदनाोंक 18.05.2017 से शेष बिी
45 पीग्रडताओों और उनके बच्च ों क एक साल
के ग्रलये और आवाग्रसत ग्रकया और उक्त
आदेश की तामीला के बाबजूद आपने इन
पीग्रडताओों में से 43 पीग्रडताओों व उनके बच्च ों
क ग्रबना समुग्रित आदेश के
ग्रदनाोंक
21.05.2017 से 23.05.2017 के मध्य ग्रकसी
समय पर राजकीय सोंरक्षण गृह (मग्रहला),
अोंतगित थाना - एत्माद्दौला, ग्रजला आगरा में
अवमुक्त कर ग्रदया। िुोंग्रक अवमुक्त की गयी
पीग्रडताओों की सोंख्या काफी है और पीग्रडताए
अवमुक्त ह ने के बाद अपने अोंग्रकत पते पर
मौजूद नही ग्रमली। पीग्रडताओों क अवमुक्त
करते
समय उनके
सोंबोंि
में
समुग्रित
अण्डरट्ेग्रकोंग व आई०डी०प्रूफ आग्रद भी नहीों
ग्रमले, ग्रजससे उनके दुव्यािपार में सखिग्रलत
ह ने की प्रबल सम्भावना है। इस प्रकार आपने
िारा 370 (3) भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के अोंतगित
दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस न्यायालय
के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

ग्रद्वतीयः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय
व थथान पर आपके द्वारा अवमुक्त की गयी
43 पीग्रडताओों के साथ उनके अवयस्क बच्च ों
क भी अवमुक्त ग्रकया गया, ग्रजससे ग्रक बच्च ों
से भी दुव्यािपार कराया जाएगा। इस प्रकार
आपने िारा 370 (5) भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के
अोंतगित दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस
न्यायालय के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

तृतीयः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय
व थथान पर आपने उक्त कायि ल क सेवक
ह ते हुये ग्रकया है। इस प्रकार आपने िारा
370 (7) भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के अोंतगित
दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस न्यायालय
के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

ितुथिः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय व
थथान पर आपक उप ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्, सदर,
इलाहाबाद के आदेश से उक्त ग्रतग्रथ पर ग्रजन
ग्रपग्रडताओों व बच्च ों क राजकीय नारी सोंरक्षण
गृह (मग्रहला), आगरा में आवाग्रसत करने के
ग्रलये ग्रदया गया था। उनके सोंरक्षक उस समय
उप ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्, सदर, इलाहाबाद थे और
उनकी
अनुमग्रत
के
ग्रबना
आपने
उन
पीग्रडताओों व बच्च ों क अवमुक्त कर ग्रदया।
इस प्रकार सोंरक्षक की सहमग्रत के ग्रबना
पीग्रडताओों और बच्च ों क हट्ाकर आपने िारा
363 भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के अोंतगित
दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस न्यायालय
के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

पोंिमः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय व
थथान पर ल क सेवक ह ने के नाते आपका
यह कतिव्य था ग्रक आपके ऊपर ग्रजस आदेश
क प्रख्याग्रपत ग्रकया जाय, उसका आप
अनुपालन करें। आपने उप ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्,
सदर, इलाहाबाद ग्रदनाोंक 18.05.2017 की
अवज्ञा की। इस प्रकार आपने िारा 188
1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के अोंतगित दण्डनीय
अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस न्यायालय के प्रसोंज्ञान
में है।

षष्टमः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय व
थथान पर आपने ग्रजन 43 पीग्रडताओों और
उनके बच्च ों क ग्रबना ग्रकसी समुग्रित आदेश
के अवमुक्त ग्रकया, दौरान ग्रववेिना उन
पीग्रडताओों में से ज्यादातर अपने अोंग्रकत पते
पर नहीों ग्रमली तथा कुछ थथान ों पर ताले लगे
हुये ग्रमले, ज पूवि से प्रशासन द्वारा सील ग्रकये
गये थे। इन पीग्रडताओों क अवमुक्त करते
समय आपने समुग्रित तरीके से आई०डी०प्रूफ
व अण्डरट्ेग्रकोंग नहीों ली, ग्रजससे यह बात
प्रमाग्रणत ह ती है ग्रक आपके द्वारा इन
पीग्रडताओों से वैश्यावृग्रि कराने के उद्देश्य से
मानव तस्कर ों के साथ ग्रमलकर एक षडयन्त्र
ग्रकया गया। इस प्रकार आपने िारा 120 बी
भारतीय दण्ड सोंग्रहता के अोंतगित दण्डनीय
अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस न्यायालय के
प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

सप्तमः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय
व थथान पर आपके द्वारा ग्रजन 43 पीग्रडताओों व
बच्च ों क उपर क्त कग्रथत मानव तस्कर ों की
ओर से ग्रदये गये प्रल भन के तहत अवमुक्त
ग्रकया गया। इस प्रकार आपके द्वारा िारा 9
अनैग्रतक व्यापार (ग्रनवारण) अग्रिग्रनयम के
अोंतगित दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया है, ज इस
न्यायालय के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।
`अष्टमः यह ग्रक उपर क्त ग्रदनाोंक, समय व
थथान पर आपके द्वारा 43 पीग्रडताओों व बच्च ों
क यह जानकारी रिते हुये अवमुक्त ग्रकया
गया ग्रक उनका उपय ग पाक्स अग्रिग्रनयम के
अोंतगित गग्रठत ग्रवग्रभन्न अपराि ों में ग्रकया
जाएगा। इस प्रकार आपने उनक अवमुक्त
करके उनक पाक्स अग्रिग्रनयम के अोंतगित
ग्रवग्रभन्न अपराि करने के ग्रलये दुष्प्रेररत ग्रकया
है। इस प्रकार आपने िारा 16/17 पाक्स
अग्रिग्रनयम के अोंतगित दण्डनीय अपराि ग्रकया
है, ज इस न्यायालय के प्रसोंज्ञान में है।

एतद्द्वारा मैं आपक ग्रनदेश देता हाँ ग्रक
आपका उपयुिक्त आर प ों पर ग्रविारण इस
न्यायालय द्वारा ग्रकया जावे।"

10. The contents of charges were read
out to the accused who denied the charges
and demanded trial.

11. Prosecution in order to prove its
case produced oral and documentary
evidence which shall be dealt with
hereinafter. The documentary evidence led
by the prosecution were duly exhibited and
included the first information report dated
1.6.2017 as Ex.Ka.3; written report dated
1.6.2017 of Punit Kumar Mishra, Dy. Chief
Probation Officer, Directorate, Women
Welfare, UP Lucknow as Ex.Ka.1; U.P.
Directorate Application dated 31.5.2017 as
Ex.Ka.3; written report dated 31.7.2017 as
Ex.Ka.6; Statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. dated 9.7.2017 of victim Sona as
Ex.Ka.7; Statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. dated 5.7.2017 of victim Anita as
Ex.Ka.8; Application to BSNL dated
30.8.2018 by Rakesh Kumar as Ex.Ka.3;
Order of Police Superintendent dated
9.6.2017 as Ex.Ka.11; Fax Receipt as
Ex.Ka.14; Certified copy of speed post
receipt as Ex.Ka. 15; Certified Copy of Email Receipt as Ex.Ka.16; Certified Copy
of Dak-bahi as Ex.Ka.17; Certified copy of
Whatsapp messages as Ex.Ka.18; Letter of
SDM Sadar Allahabad dated 13.6.2017 as
Ex.Ka.13; Certified Copy of SDM Order
dated 18.5.2017 as Ex.Ka.19 and Final
Form/ Report as Ex.Ka.9.

12. The prosecution has also produced
Punit Kumar Mishra, the Deputy Chief
Probation Officer posted in the office of
Directorate,
Women
Welfare,
U.P.,
Lucknow as PW-1, who has reiterated the
contents of the first information report in
his examination-in-chief. He has stated that
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the object of placing these inmates in the
Protection
Home
was
to
ensure
rehabilitation of the victims and the
exercise
in
that
regard
was
being
undertaken under the Act of 1956 in which
the term of detention was extended by a
further period of two years, but contrary to
the orders of the competent authority, the
accused appellant has released these
inmates, as a result of which the inmates
may have landed again in trafficking,
resulting in their exploitation and would
defeat the object for which they had been
rescued and lodged in the Protection Home.
He has also stated that the description of
family members of these inmates, as was
mentioned
in
the
documents,
was
subsequently found to be false and at
variance with their actual addresses, and
that most of these inmates were not found
on the addresses shown in the release
orders. He has further stated that the
relationship of alleged family members
were also not ascertained by holding their
DNA test, etc., as it was apprehended that
the alleged family members of inmates
were not the family members but were
persons engaged in immoral trafficking
who would have restored these inmates to
immoral
trafficking
leading
to
their
exploitation. This witness has also been
cross examined. He has stated that a
direction was issued by the Director
Women Welfare U.P. for an FIR to be
lodged in the matter but there was no
specific direction to lodge FIR against the
accused appellant. He has verified the
contents of the written report on the basis
of which the FIR itself was lodged. He has
feigned ignorance about the provisions
under which offences were conducted by
the accused appellant except Section 9 of
the Act of 1956. He has categorically stated
that he has no personal knowledge with
regard to service of order dated 18.5.2017
upon the accused appellant. He has also
stated that report of the District Probation
Officer and the complaint of Sunil Kumar
is on record as per which the inmates were
prematurely released. He has however
denied the suggestion given to the witness
that the order extending the term of
detainment was not communicated to the
officer concerned. He has no information
that any of these forty three inmates made
any complaint to the competent authority
about their being put back into prohibited
activities.

13. Sunil Kumar has been adduced as
PW-2, who represents Guriya Swayam Sevi
Sansthan which is a registered society
engaged in eradication of human trafficking
and child prostitution and claims that on
account of their intervention about 2500
victims have been got released so far. He
has stated that on a communication sent by
him to the District Magistrate, Allahabad
on 19.4.2016, the authorities proceeded to
take action in respect of the alleged
trafficking and sexual exploitation of
females at Allahabad. A PIL was also filed
by him on which directions were issued. It
was in furtherance of complaint made by
PW-2 that 67 females and 37 children were
rescued and lodged at the Government
Protection Home (Women) at Agra under
an order of the magistrate passed in
exercise of his jurisdiction under Section
17(4) of the Act of 1956. He claims that the
order extending the term by a further period
of two years was actually served upon the
appellant by Fax on 19.5.2017 and also by
e-mail, whatsapp and registered post on
20.5.2017. He further claims that the SDM
Sadar Allahabad personally informed him
that the accused appellant has seen the
whatsapp and e-mail containing the order
dated 18.5.2017 sent to her. He has also
stated that on 27.5.2017 he came to know
1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
that despite the order passed by the
magistrate the accused appellant has
released forty three victims alongwith their
eight children in a criminal conspiracy for
their ultimate trafficking and sold these
inmates to brothel owners. He further
claims that complaint in that regard was
also
sent
to
State
Government
on
29.5.2017. He claims that his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by
the Investigating Officer on 14.6.2017. This
witness has been cross examined wherein
he admits that he is not a member of Guriya
Swayam Sevi Sansthan. He claims that he
is only a social activist working in the field
for nearly three years. He also claims that
he is aware of the whatsapp; e-mail and
fax, etc. He has shown ignorance about the
policy of the Central Government for
dispatch of official communication through
official e-mail or whether the e-mail was
actually sent to the accused appellant
pursuant to such policy. He is not aware of
the date of dispatch of communication by
registered post. He has not seen the
dispatch register. He is not aware of the
telephone number of the accused appellant,
nor he is aware of her whatsapp; fax or email number. He has stated that SDM Sadar
had informed him that the contents of the
order dated 18.5.2017 were seen by the
accused appellant on 20.5.2017 at around 5
pm, on her whatsapp. He has denied the
suggestion that accused appellant had no
whatsapp, e-mail ID and that a false
statement has been given by him in that
regard.

14. PW-3 is Constable Hoshiyar Singh,
who has verified the Chik FIR. PW-4 is
Inspector Yogendra Yadav, who claims that
he was posted at police station Etmaddaula as
Sub-Inspector and on the direction of the
Investigating Circle Officer, he had gone to
trace the inmate Roopa D/o Rubir through
her supurdgar Manmaya wife of Chandra
Bahadur at Pune. He claims that on the given
address the inmate was not found. No
information about the supurdgar could be
collected either. In the cross-examination this
witness has admitted that photograph of
Roopa was not available in the records and
that her photograph was seen by him on
whatsapp.

15. Sub-Inspector Satendra Singh is
PW-5, who similarly has gone to locate the
inmates Pooja and Babita at Jalpaiguri in
West Bengal, but they could not be traced. He
has however stated that on inquiry he found
that inmate Pooja D/o Sanjay is working as a
Cook at Jalpaiguri and Babita is living at
Calcutta. Their supurdgars could be contacted
by the witness. In the cross-examination, he
admitted that the details with regard to his
arrival at Jalpaiguri was not mentioned nor
the details have been given in his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also admitted
that he did not visit Calcutta to trace out the
whereabouts of Babita.

16. PW-6 Sona is one of the inmates,
who in her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. had claimed that she was not released
by the accused appellant alongwith other
inmates, as she had no money to bribe her.
However, in her statement made before the
Court this witness has stated that she was
lodged in the Protection Home and was not
released as her parents had not come to take
her. She has specifically denied the allegation
that inmates were released by the accused
appellant after receiving bribe. This witness
has been declared hostile. In the crossexamination this witness has stated that she
had given a false statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C.

17. PW-7 Anita is another inmate,
who too has not stated anything against the
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused appellant in her statement before
the Court. She has however, stated that her
statement was earlier recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.

18. PW-8 is Sub-Inspector Nityanand
Pandey, who too had made attempts to trace
out inmates Anita and Pinki, who had been
released to their family members at Basti.
He claims that these inmates were not
traceable at the given address. This witness
has been cross examined and has admitted
that he did not carry any photograph of the
inmates who he wanted to trace and has
denied the suggestion that he has actually
not visited Basti to trace out the inmates.

19. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer,
who was posted as Circle Officer, Chhatta
and has proved the charge-sheet. In his
cross-examination, he has admitted that no
complaint was received from any of the
inmates and that he has no knowledge
whether the inmates were minor or not. He
has admitted that he has no information
about the age of the inmates. He has also
admitted that for an offence of criminal
conspiracy there must be more than one
person and that in this case apart from the
accused appellant there is no other person
accused as conspirator. He admitted that
during the course of investigation the SDM
Sadar Allahabad, who had passed the order
of detainment and its extension has not
been interrogated and his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded.
He has also admitted that details of phone
number of SDM Sadar or whatsapp number
or official whatsapp number, fax number of
the accused appellant Geeta Rakesh are
otherwise not available on record. He also
admitted that he is not the designated
authority under the Act of 1956. He has
admitted that no information by the SDM
Sadar Allahabad with regard to extension
of inmates term to the accused appellant is
available in the case diary.

20. PW-10 B.S. Tyagi is the first
Investigating Officer, who stated that on
17.6.2017 he had recorded the statement of
Sub-Inspector Azad Pal Singh, who had
gone to locate the inmates on their given
address at Allahabad, but they were not
found. In the cross-examination, he has
admitted that he was not the designated
officer under the Act of 1956, yet he had
arrested the accused appellant on 1.6.2017.
He too has stated that he has not personally
met the SDM Sadar Allahabad, nor has he
recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. As per him the Fax number in the
office of SDM Allahabad as well as his
whatsapp and e-mail ID have been
mentioned in the case diary on 11.6.2017 in
the statement of Umashankar. In the same
statement mobile number of Sanjiv Khare
working in the office of SDM Sadar has
also been mentioned as 9450509758 from
which the contents of the order dated
18.5.2017 was sent by mobile to the
accused appellant on her mobile number
9457020485. He has admitted that he has
not made inquiries with regard to the
aforesaid two mobile numbers nor details
in that regard are mentioned in the case
diary. He further states that he has not met
Sanjiv Khare. He has admitted that mobile
number and fax number of accused
appellant is not mentioned in the case diary.
This witness has clearly stated that all
inmates
released
by
the
accused
appellant were major. He has also
admitted that for an offence under Section
363 IPC to be attracted the

21. PW-11 Anand Pal Singh, is a
member of the team deputed to locate the
inmates released by the accused appellant
and the inmates have not been located at
1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
their given addresses. Supurdgars however
were located and they disclosed the
whereabouts of the released inmates.

22. PW-12 is one Deepak Prajapati, who
was posted as Collection Amin in the office
of Sadar Tehsil at Allahabad. He claims that
Samar Patel was posted as Steno in the
office of SDM Sadar Allahabad, where he
was also posted, and he has seen Samar
Patel working in the office. Samar Patel
was posted as Steno in the office of District
Magistrate, Allahabad. He admits that
summons
were
actually
issued
for
appearance to Samar Patel, but instead of
Samar Patel it is he, who has appeared
alongwith records on the instructions of the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Allahabad.
He
has
filed
certified
documents. The testimony of this witness is
important as he is the only person who has
supported the prosecution case about
dispatch of the communication dated
18.5.2017 to the accused appellant. He is
also the main witness who has verified the
alleged service of the order dated 18.5.2017
upon the accused appellant. This witness
has stated that the term of detention of 67
inmates and 37 children at Government
Protection Home (Women), Agra was
extended by two years vide order dated
18.5.2017. The copy of the order dated
18.5.2017 has been filed by him in Court
and its original is stated to be available in
the office records. The original copy of the
order dated 18.5.2017 has not been
produced and its xerox copy certified by
the authorities has been exhibited on record
as A-13. An objection with regard to its
admissibility is raised by the defence.
Photocopy of alleged Fax has been
exhibited as K-14, while copy of the
dispatch by registered speed post has been
marked as Exhibit K-15. Photocopy of
dispatch register maintained in the office
has also been exhibited. Exhibit K-18 is the
alleged whatsapp communication which is
in the nature of a photocopy containing two
blue tick marks with a certification annexed
on the document stating that the contents
have been sent from the mobile of one
Sanjiv Khare no. 9450509758 to the
accused appellant on her mobile number
9457020485 at 4.56 pm on 20.5.2017.

23. Exhibit K-19 is also a certified
copy of the communication of the order
dated 18.5.2017 extending the period of
detainment by a further period of two
years. The testimony of PW-12 along with
cross-examination is extracted hereinafter:-

"नाम साक्षी- दीपक प्रजापग्रत ग्रपता का
नाम- स्व० बुलाकीलाल प्रजापग्रत उम्र- 48 वषि
पेशा- नौकरी, ग्रनवासी-38 सी बेली र ड नया
कट्रा, इलाहाबाद ने सशपथ बयान ग्रकया ग्रक-

मै वतिमान में सोंिह अमीन, तहसील सदर,
इलाहाबाद के पद पर तैनात हाँ। समर पट्ेल,
स्टेन
उप
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी
कायािलय,
सदर
इलाहाबाद में तैनात थे। वहाों पर मै भी अमीन के
पद पर तैनात हाँ। मै समर ग्रसोंह पट्ेल क जानता
हाँ तथा उनक ग्रलिते पढ़ते देिा है। समर पट्ेल
वतिमान
में
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी,
इलाहाबाद
के
कायािलय में स्टेन के पद पर तैनात है। समर
पट्ेल के नाम के द्वारा जारी समन के आिार पर
मुझे उप ग्रजलाग्रिकारी, सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा
इस मुकदमें से सम्बखन्धत िाहे गये दस्तावेज के
साथ साक्ष्य हेतु भेजा गया है। ग्रजस पत्र के द्वारा
मुझे आदेग्रशत ग्रकया गया है, वह मै साथ लाया हाँ,
ग्रजसे मै पत्रावली पर दाखिल कर रहा हाँ।

कायािलय
उपग्रजलाग्रिकारी,
सदर
इलाहाबाद द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक 13/06/2017 क पत्राोंक
सोंख्या 4470/एस०डी०एम० सदर-एस-17 के
माध्यम से इस मुकदमें के ग्रववेिक बी०एस०
त्यागी क्षेत्राग्रिकारी, छिा जनपद आगरा क
ग्रदनाोंक 18/05/2017 क जररये फैक्स/स्पीड
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
प स्ट/पोंजीकृत/ईमेल/व्हाट्सअप के माध्यम से
डाक सोंख्या 115 ग्रदनाोंक 19 व 20/05/2017 क
इलाहाबाद के अन्तिगत क्षेत्र मीरगोंज में अनैग्रतक
व्यापार अग्रिग्रनयम 1956 के अन्तिगत की गयी
कायिवाही में मुक्त कराई गयी पीग्रड़ताओ क उप
ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट्, सदर के आदेश ग्रदनाोंक
21/05/2016 अन्तिगत िारा 17(4) अनैग्रतक देह
व्यापार अग्रिग्रनयम 1956 द्वारा 67 सोंवासग्रनय
एवों 37 बच्च क एक वषि की अवग्रि तक
राजकीय सोंरक्षण, गृह आगरा में भेजा गया था,
ग्रजसकी अवग्रि ग्रदनाोंक 18/05/2017 क बढ़ाकर
द वषि के ग्रलए कर दी गयी थी। उक्त बढ़ाई गयी
समयावग्रि के आदेश क अिीग्रक्षका, आगरा एवों
अन्य अग्रिकाररय क भेजे गये थे, ज उप
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी, सदर इलाहाबाद के हस्ताक्षररत
पत्र, इस पत्रावली में मौजूद है। ग्रजसकी
कायािलय प्रग्रत मै आज अपने साथ लेकर आया
हाँ। ग्रजसकी मूल पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। मूल
क ररकााँडि से ग्रमलान कर लाये गये कायािलय
ररकााँडि से ग्रमलान कर साग्रबत ग्रकया गया। ग्रजस
पर प्रदशि क-13 डाला गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्त
के ग्रवद्वान अग्रिवक्ता की ओर से आपग्रि की
गयी।

इस पत्र के साथ सोंलग्न फैक्स रसीद
एस०डी०एम० सदर, इलाहाबाद द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक
19/05/2017 की प्रमाग्रणत है, ग्रजसे उप
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी, सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा अपनी
सील एवों हस्ताक्षर से प्रमाग्रणत की गयी है।
ग्रजसकी मूल प्रग्रत मै साथ लेकर आया हाँ। ज
ग्रमलान कर मूल की छाया प्रग्रत है। पत्रावली पर
उपलब्ध फैक्स रसीद पर प्रदशि क-14 डाला
गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता के ग्रवद्वान अग्रिवक्ता
द्वारा आपग्रि की गयी। एस०डी०एम० सदर
इलाहाबाद द्वारा भेजे गये पत्र ज इस मुकदमें के
ग्रववेिक बी०एस० त्यागी क भेजा गया था, के
अग्रतररक्त ग्रजलाग्रिकारी, आगरा, अिीग्रक्षका
राजकीय सोंरक्षण गृह आगरा, ग्रजला प्र वेशन
अग्रिकारी, वररि पुग्रलस अिीक्षक, आगरा क
पोंजीकृत डाक से पत्र भेजे गये थे, उनकी मूल
डाक रसीद मै अपने साथ लेकर आया हाँ। मूल
डाक रसीद की छाया प्रग्रतयाों एस०डी०एम०
सदर, इलाहाबाद की सील एवों हस्ताक्षर से
प्रमाग्रणत है। रसीदे पत्रावली पर मौजूद है, मै
उनके हस्ताक्षर की ग्रशनाख्त करता हाँ। रसीद
पर प्रदशि क-15 डाला गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता
की ओर से आपग्रि की गयी। उप ग्रजलाग्रिकारी,
सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक 19/05/2017 क
समय 08.54 पी०एम० पर अग्रभयुक्त गीता
राकेश क उनके ईमेल आई०डी० पर जररये
ईमेल उपर क्त आदेश की प्रग्रत प्रेग्रषत की गयी।
ग्रजसे गीता राकेश द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक 19/05/2017 क
09.01 पी०एम० पर ि लकर पढ़ा गया। इस
ईमेल सोंदेश आदान-प्रदान की मूल ग्रप्रोंट् क मै
आज अपने साथ लेकर आया हों ग्रजसकी फ ट्
प्रग्रत एस०डी०एम० सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा अपने
हस्ताक्षर व सील से प्रमाग्रणत की गयी है, ज
पत्रावली पर मौजूद है। ग्रजस पर प्रदशि क-16
डाला गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता की ओर से
आपग्रि की गयी।

उप ग्रजलाग्रिकारी सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा
अपने आदेश ग्रदनाोंग्रकत 18/05/2017 क अपने
डाक
वही
िमाोंक
115/एस०डी०एम०
सदर/18/05/2017 का इन्द्राज अपने डाक
रग्रजस्टर में करते हुए इस आदेश क राजकीय
सोंरक्षण गृह, मग्रहला अिीग्रक्षका, आगरा व
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी इलाहाबाद, ग्रजलाग्रिकारी आगरा,
एस०एस०पी०
इलाहाबाद,
एस०एस०पी०
आगरा, ग्रजला प्र वेशन अग्रिकारी आगरा क
भेजा गया। वह मूल डाक बही/रग्रजस्टर मै अपने
साथ लेकर आया हाँ। ग्रजसकी छाया प्रग्रत उप
ग्रजलाग्रिकारी, सदर इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रमाग्रणत
कर दाखिल कर रहा हाँ। उनके हस्ताक्षर की मै
ग्रशनाख्त करता हाँ। ग्रजस पर प्रदशि क-17 डाला
गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता की ओर से आपग्रि
की गयी। एस०डी०एम० सदर इलाहाबाद के
आदेश ग्रदनाोंग्रकत 18/05/2017 क उनके
कायािलय में कायिरत लेिपाल श्री सोंजीव िरे के
म बाइल नम्बर 9450509758 द्वारा राजकीय
1 All. Smt. Geeta Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
सोंरक्षण गृह, आगरा की अिीग्रक्षका श्रीमती गीता
राकेश के म बाइल नम्बर 945(अस्पष्ट)020485
व ग्रदनाोंक 20/05/2017 क समय 04.56
पी०एम० पर व्हाट््सअप ग्रकया गया है, ग्रजसकी
रोंगीन ग्रप्रट्ोंआउट् ग्रजसमें व्हाट््सअप के ररसीव
डबल ब्लू ग्रट्क साइन मौजूद है तथा इस रोंगीन
व्हाट्सअप की ग्रप्रोंट्आउट् पर एस०डी०एम०
सदर इलाहाबाद मह दय ने इस आशय का
प्रमाणपत्र अपने हस्तलेि में ग्रदया है। मै उनके
हस्तलेि व उनकी सील मुहर व मूल हस्ताक्षर
(का०फट्ा) तस्दीक करता हाँ। ग्रजस पर प्रदशि
क-18 डाला गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता की ओर
से (का०फट्ा) गयी। उप ग्रजलाग्रिकारी सदर
इलाहाबाद के आदेश ग्रदनाोंग्रकत 18/05/2017
पत्राोंक
सोंख्या
(का०फट्ा)
ज
अिीग्रक्षका
राजकीय सोंरक्षण गृह, मग्रहला आगरा के नाम
सोंब ग्रित है, आदेश ग्रवषय राजकीय सोंरक्षण गृह
मग्रहला आगरा में आवाग्रसत थाना क तवाली
इलाहाबाद
में
पोंजीकृत
अग्रभय ग
सोंख्या
119/2016 की पीग्रड़ताओों व बच्च के अनैग्रतक
व्यापार अग्रिग्रनयम 1956 की िारा 17(4) के
तहत पाररत आदेश की प्रमाग्रणत प्रग्रतग्रलग्रप कुल
08 वकि मे मौजूद है। मूल आदेश मै आज उप
ग्रजला मग्रजस्टरेट् सदर इलाहाबाद के कायािलय से
अपने साथ लाया हाँ। यह मूल आदेश भी 08 वकि
का है। प्रमाग्रणत व मूल आदेश का अक्षरशः
ग्रमलान ग्रकया गया, ज एक ही है। इस आदेश
पर कायािलय की मुहर एवों हस्ताक्षर मौजूद है।
ग्रजसे आज मैं पुनः प्रमाग्रणत कर रहा हाँ। ग्रजस
पर प्रदशि क-19 डाला गया। ग्रजस पर अग्रभयुक्ता
की ओर से आपग्रि की गयी।

प्रग्रत परीक्षा द्वारा अग्रभयुक्ता

x x x x x

यह कहना सही है मुझे न्यायालय से गवाही
के ग्रलए समन नही ग्रमला था। सोंजीव िरे
लेिपाल कायािलय में सम्बद्ध थे तथा कायािलय
का कायि देिते थे। यह कहना गलत है ग्रक
सोंजीव िरे फील्ड वकि करते ह और कायािलय
का कायि नही करते ह । सोंजीव िरे का म बाइल
मैने नही देिा है। न ही सोंजीव िरे ने मेरे सामने
म बाइल का प्रय ग ग्रकया।

मेरी ड्यूट्ी रेवेन्यू कलेक्शन के ग्रलए है। मै
फील्ड वकि के ग्रलए जाता हाँ। मै सुबह 09 बजे
फील्ड में जाकर 12 बजे तहसील में आ जाता हाँ
और शाम क पाोंि बजे वहााँ से वापस आ जाता
हाँ। गीता राकेश का म बाइल नम्बर मुझे नही
मालूम। गीता राकेश क मैं नही जानता हाँ। मैं
केवल माोंगा गया ररकाडि अपने अग्रिकारी के
कहने पर न्यायालय में लेकर आया हाँ और उसी
ररकाडि के सोंबोंि में मैंने अपना साक्ष्य ग्रदया है।
मुझे गीता राकेश के ग्रकसी फ न के ग्रवषय में
क ई जानकारी नही है।

यह कहना सही है ग्रक प्रदशि क-13,
ग्रदनाोंक 13 जून 2017 का है। प्रदशि क-14
जीराक्स प्रमाग्रणत प्रग्रत है। प्रदशि क-14 ग्रकसक
भेजा गया, यह प्रमाग्रणत नही है। प्रदशि क-15
प्रमाग्रणत छाया प्रग्रत है। इस रसीद से क्या भेजा
गया, यह कवररोंग पत्र में ग्रलिा ह गा। रसीद में
नही ग्रलिा है। मै नही बता सकता ग्रक जा भी
मजमून भेजा गया, वह प्राप्तकताि पर कब
पहुोंिा।

मुझे नही मालूम ग्रक गीता राकेश की क ई
ईमेल आई०डी० है या नही। मै अिीग्रक्षका
कायािलय में ईमेल, व्हाट्सअप या फैक्स की क्या
सुग्रविाये है, इसकी जानकारी नही रिता हाँ। मै
नही बता सकता ग्रक गीता राकेश के कायािलय में
ईमेल, व्हाट्सअप या फैक्स की सुग्रविा नही है।
मुझे इसकी भी जानकारी नही है ग्रक प्रदशि क17 से भेजा गया पत्र कायािलय में ग्रकस तारीि
क पहुोंिा। यह कहना गलत है ग्रक प्रदशि क-18
से भेजा गया व्हाट्सअप फजी ह तथा नही भेजा
गया ह । यह कहना गलत है ग्रक प्रदशि क-19
फजी बनाकर तैयार ग्रकया गया ह । यह कहना
सही है ग्रक यह मेरे सामने ग्रकसी क नही भेजे
गये। यह कहना गलत है ग्रक क ई भी फैक्स,
ईमेल,
व्हाट्सअप
या
पत्र
गीता
राकेश
अिीग्रक्षका क प्राप्त नही हुए ह तथा उसे
फोंसाने के ग्रलए बाद में फजी प्रपत्र तैयार ग्रकये
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
गये ह । यह कहना गलत है ग्रक ज प्रपत्र मैंने
दाखिल ग्रकये है, वह फजी ह । यह कहना गलत
है ग्रक मै आज न्यायालय में झूठी गवाही दे रहा
हाँ।"

24. Incriminating material produced
during the trial, noticed above, has been put
to the accused appellant who has denied the
accusations in her statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. She has stated that in the year
2016, she had filed a writ petition for her
promotion and some persons were opposed
to her who were also impleaded as a party
and that she has been discriminated only
because she belongs to scheduled caste.
She has also stated that Principal Secretary,
Women Welfare was annoyed with her and
that is why she has been falsely implicated
by upper caste officers.

25. The accused appellant has also
entered the witness box as DW-1 and has
clearly stated that the order dated 18.5.2017
was never served upon her nor she had any
knowledge about issuance of such an order.
She has categorically stated that the order
dated 18.5.2017 was received by her in her
office on 24.5.2017 at 2.15 pm whereby the
term of detainment was extended by two
years but by then all the 43 inmates had
already been released by her. She has stated
that after 20.5.2017 she could not detain
any of the inmate, even for a day, and any
detainment of inmates would have exposed
her to accusations later. She stated that the
inmates were released to their family
members including brothers and sisters
whose notarial affidavits were taken and
their undertakings were also taken on
record. These inmates were all major and
their request letters for release are available
on record. She has stated that there is no
facility of e-mail; fax or whatsapp in her
office and that she has not received any email; fax or whatsapp from the office of the
SDM Sadar Allahabad. She has stated that
all documents evidencing dispatch of the
order dated 18.5.2017 by e-mail; whatsapp
are fabricated and forged. She has also
stated that for the last 19 years she has not
been promoted and as her claim was not
considered she approached the High Court
and only because of it the higher authorities
were annoyed with her.