# Smt. Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Irrigation, U.P. Lucknow & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-devi-v-state-of-u-p-through-the-secretary-deptt-of-irrigation-u-p-38998
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
167
applied in this case as the petitioner's husband worked for over 11
years.

3. More ever in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servant, Dying and Harness Rules it has been
mentioned in rule 2(3) that the benefit of the Dying and Harness
Rules may be given to the dependent where the deceased had worked
for at least three years. Since the petitioner'' husband worked for
over 11 years the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Dying and
Harness Rules.

4. In the circumstances the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner
commensurate to her qualifications within one month of production
of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

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(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

.XQGDQODO
«$FFXVHG 5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH SDUW\

&RQQHFWHG ZLWK
&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

5DP 3UDNDVK
«$FFXVHG5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU
«2SSRVLWH SDUWLHV
&ULPLQDO UHYLVLRQ DJDLQVW WKH MXGJPHQW DQG RUGHU GDWHG
RI WKH 6HVVLRQV -XGJH LQ &ULPLQDO $SSHDO 1R RI
.XQGDO /DO VRQ RI %KDJZDQ 'DVV UHVLGHQW
RI 1R 4DGLU 5RDG 'HKUDGXQ
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH 3DUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
 6KLU 96 -DXKDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH 3DULWHV
 $*$
1999
------
July, 5
1999
------
Smt. Saroj Devi
 Vs.
State of U.P.
through The
Secretary, Deptt.
Of Irrigation,
U.P. Lucknow
& others
------
M. Katju,J.
168 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999

&U 3& 6HFWLRQ 7KH RUGHU RI WKH OHDUQHG $GGLWLRQDO
6HVVLRQV -XGJH GLUHFWLQJ WKH UHWULDO ZDV FKDOOHQJHG+HOGWKH
&RXUWV KDYH DOZD\V UHFRJQLVHG WKDW HFRQRPLF RIIHQFHV DQG WKH
RIIHQFHV UHODWHG WR WKH SXEOLF RIILFHUV DQG IRRG DGXOWHUDWLRQ DUH
VXFK LQ ZKLFK WKH TXDVKLQJ RI FKDUJH DQG UHWULDO PD\ QRW EH LQ WKH
LQWHUHVW RI MXVWLFHVLQFH WKLV FDVH DOVR UHODWHV WR HFRQRPLF RIIHQFH
LW LV QRW SURSHU WR TXDVK WKH UHPDQG RUGHU SDUD
Case referred.
AIR 1986 Supreme Court 289
1998 SCC(Cr.) 1692
1996 SCC(Cr.) 589
By the Court

1.
The facts leading to the aforementioned revisions are that in
Original Case No. 329 of 1981, Food Inspector Vs. Ram Prakash
and M/s Shanker Salt works through Kundal lal the Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun by the order dated 31.08.1982
convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(I)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced each
one of them to suffer R.I. for a period of six months and to paya fine
of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for
a period of one month each.

2.
Accused Kundan Lal challenged his conviction by preferring
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1982 while accused Ram Prakash
challenged his conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 86 of
1982 before the Sessions Judge, Deharadun. Both the appeals were
heard together by Sri Sardar Bahadur Balveer the then Addl.
Sessions Judge, Dehradun. He found that the court, which tried the
case against the two accused-appellants, had no jurisdiction and
consequently sat aside their conviction and sentence by his judgment
and order dated 30.11.1984 and remanded the case to the C.J.M.
Dehradun to get the case tried by the competent court in the light of
the observations made in the body of judgment afresh. He also
directed the parties to appear before the court concerned on
01.12.1984.

3.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid common order of remand in
both the appeals, accused Kundan Lal preferred Criminal Revision
No. 280 of 1985 and similarly, accused Ram Prakash preferred
Criminal Revision No. 306 of 1985 in this Court. The accusedrevisionist Kundal Lal prayed that the operation of the impugned
order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 30.11.1984 in
1999
------
Kundan Lal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
B.K. Sharma,J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
169
Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1982 relating to him be stayed and
acting upon that prayer, the High Court vide it order dated
15.02.1985 stayed further proceedings as prayed. Accusedrevisionist Ram Prakash made similar prayer in Criminal Revision
no. 306 of 1985 and therein also this Court acting upon the prayer
stayed the proceedings by its order dated 19.02.1985 and as a
consequence thereof, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 329 of
1981 are lying stayed till now.

4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only
contention raised before me behalf of the two accused-revisionists is
that the order of the learned Addl. Sessions judge directing the retrial
was untenable and should be set aside. Reliance has been placed by
the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists on the authority S.
Guin and others Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd., AIR 1986 Supreme Court
289. In my view this authority is of no help to the accusedrevisionists. In that case, a complaint has been filed before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for the offences under Section 341
I.P.C. and Section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act committed
in October, 1977. After trial, the Magistrate acquitted all the accused.
Against the said judgment of acquittal, an appeal was filed by the
Bank before the High Court and after nearly six years, the High
Court found that the trial Court had missed the essence of the
offences and so there was failure of justice and consequently set
aside the judgment of acquittal and remanded the case for retrail for
the offence and under these circumstances, the Apex Court observed
that having regard tot he nature of the acts alleged to have been
committed, the High Court should have directed the dropping of the
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482,
Criminal procedure Code even if for some reason it came to the
conclusion that the acquittal was wrong and that fresh trial nearly
seven years after the alleged incident is bound to result in harassment
and abuses of judicial process. The Apex Court further said:

"............the High Court should have dismissed the appeal before it
even if it disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court with regard
to the gist of the offence punishable under section 341 Indian Penal
Code, having regard tot he inordinate delay of nearly six years that
had ensued after the judgment of acquittal, the nature and magnitude
of the offences allege to have been committed by the appellants and
the difficulties that may have to be encountered in securing the
presence of witnesses in a case of this nature nearly 7 years after the
incident. The termination of the criminal proceedings in that way
1999
------
Kundan Lal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
B.K. Sharma,J.
170 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
would secure the ends of justice as it would bring about
reconciliation between the management and the employees and also
put an end to a state criminal proceeding in which the public had no
longer sufficient interest."

The Apex Court consequently restored the order of acquittal in these
circumstances. In the present case, the facts are totally different. In
this case, the occurrence related to year 1979. The trial court made
the conviction on 31.08.1982 and the appellate court passed the
remand order on 30.11.1984 which cannot be said to be long-after
and if the two accused-revisionists had abided with the remand order,
retrial of the case might have been finished in the year 1985 itself. It
cannot be said that in the year 1984 when the learned Additional
Sessions Judge deciding the two appeals passed the remand order,
there was anything illegal in his order. There was no undue delay in
the trial and also there was no undue delay in the disposal of the
appeals. Actually, the appellate court had no option than to direct the
retrial particularly in this case which related to the prevention of
Food Adulteration Act. The courts have always recognised that the
economic offence, and the officers related to the public officers and
food adulteration are such in which the quashing of charge or trial
may not be in the interest of justice. The case of Rajdeo Sharma vs.
state of Bihar reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cr.), 1692 is a
case under the prevention of Corruption Act in which the F.I.R. was
lodged 16 long years ago; charge sheet was submitted three years
later and till 1995, the prosecution had examined only three out of
forty witness, the Apex Court declined to quash the prosecution
pointing out that the accused was never in carcerased as his bail
application was allowed on the day he had appeared before the court.
In the present case, there was no delay in the trial and there was no
delay in the disposal of appeals preferred against the conviction and
when the appellate court found that the trial had been made by a
court having no jurisdiction and, therefore, directed the retrial and if
due to the own act of the accused-revisionists, the retrial was
delayed, then they have to thank themselves and in no way, the
prosecution is a guilty of any delay in bringing the accused to retrial
in pursuance of the remand order. The accused revisionist are
countering on bail all through. Under these circumstances, it is
immaterial that inpersuance of the remand order, the retrial would
take-place now after the disposal of these two criminal revisions. The
spirit of "common Cause" case ( "Common Cause" a registered
Society through its Director Vs. Union of India and others reported
in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri 589) goes against the accused1999
------
Kundan Lal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
B.K. Sharma,J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
171
revisionists . in that case while making the direction in favour of the
accused-person for release on bail, discharge or acquittal of the
accused in cases suffering from delay in trial, the Apex Court
expressly stated in Paragraph 4 that the directions shall not apply to
the Cases involving corruption, N.D.P.S. Act, Essential Commodities
Act, Food Adulteration Act and Acts dealing with environment or
any other economic of offence etc. In this authority it was said that
the criminal courts shall try the offence mentioned in para aforesaid
on priority basis. The present also is a case relating the economic
offence being under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for
that reason it was all the more improper to quash the remand order
for retrial.

5.
Both the above revisions are consequently dismissed. The
remand order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun
is upheld. The stay orders dated 15.02.1985 and 19.02.1985 passed
by this court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 280 of 1985 and 306 of
1985 respectively are vacated. It is directed that the court to which
the case is entrusted for retrial, shall act with utmost expedition in
making the trial and deciding the case according to law.

6.
Let the record of the trial court which has been received in
Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1985 be returned to the C.J.M.
concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith by special
messenger/courier.

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·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI
&ULPLQDO UHYLVLRQ DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU DQG MXGJPHQW GDWHG
SDVVHG E\ 6UL 60 *RHO ,9 $GGO 6HVVLRQV -XGJH %LMQRU LQ &ULPLQDO
$SSHDO 1R
1D]DU
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
 6KUL *& 6D[HQD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV $*$
1999
------
July, 27
1999
------
Kundan Lal
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
B.K. Sharma,J.