# Smt. Yasoda v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-29
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.7662 of 2004
- **Bench:** Amar Saran, R.N. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-yasoda-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40906
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-299Power
of
Magistrate-when
accused
absconded-even
after
82
and
83,
proceeding
and
the
closure
of
proceeding
under
section-299-if
magistrate
gets
information
about
existence of any immovable propertyMagistrate
should
pass
attachment
order-inaction on the part of concerned
Magistrate despite of the particulars
given by the informant/complainantcourt expressed its great concern.

Held: Para 3

Learned Magistrate is also directed to
proceed,
under
Section
299
Cr.P.C.
against the accused, if he is satisfied that
there is no immediate prospects of
arresting the accused after passing a
detailed order. Even if while proceeding,
under Section 299 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
gets information from the police or
complainant-informant about existence
of
any
moveable
and
immoveable
property of the accused, there is no
impediment in issuing as attachment
order.

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
justify the action against the petitioner.
Assuming that there is one bad entry of
1998-99 but that has also not been
communicated to him. It is aptly said one
swallow does not bring a spring. One bad
entry in more than three decades of
service cannot be said to be sufficient to
hold that the public interest requires the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
From the service record, it is also
apparent that throughout his service, the
integrity of the petitioner was never
doubted. The counsel for the respondent
has failed to point out any material which
could show that the conduct or the
method of working of the petitioner was
adversely telling up on the efficiency of
the unit where he was working or of the
corporation at large. Therefore, the
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement appears to be arbitrary and not
based on any relevant material. Therefore,
it has to be quashed.

7. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order dated 3.8.2005 is hereby
quashed and it is directed that the
petitioner shall be treated to be in service
till the date of his actual retirement and
will also be entitled to consequential
benefits. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.7662 of 2004

Smt. Yasoda

...Petitioner.
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Naveen Yadav
Sri Y.S. Bohra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-299Power
of
Magistrate-when
accused
absconded-even
after
82
and
83,
proceeding
and
the
closure
of
proceeding
under
section-299-if
magistrate
gets
information
about
existence of any immovable propertyMagistrate
should
pass
attachment
order-inaction on the part of concerned
Magistrate despite of the particulars
given by the informant/complainantcourt expressed its great concern.

Held: Para 3

Learned Magistrate is also directed to
proceed,
under
Section
299
Cr.P.C.
against the accused, if he is satisfied that
there is no immediate prospects of
arresting the accused after passing a
detailed order. Even if while proceeding,
under Section 299 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
gets information from the police or
complainant-informant about existence
of
any
moveable
and
immoveable
property of the accused, there is no
impediment in issuing as attachment
order.

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

1. In this case, F.I.R was registered
on 7.5.2003 under Section 302 I. P. C.
and the charge sheet was submitted on
1.6.2003. The accused have not been
arrested so far in collusion with the
Investigating Officer as alleged in the writ
petition. The C.J.M. concerned has also
not taken effective steps for arresting the
accused persons despite several orders,
passed by this Court. It has been
mentioned
¥
in
the
supplementary
2 All] Smt. Yasoda V. State of U.P. and others
485
affidavit, filed by Vinod Kumar, the
present S.H.O, Adarsh Nagar, district
Muzaffarnagar that he has already moved
the
C.
J.
M,
Muzaffarnagar
for
proceeding, under section 299 Cr.P.C. and
that application is still pending. It has also
been informed by the prosecution side
that the police had applied to the
Magistrate concerned for attachment of
the properties of the accused, under
Section 83 Cr.P.C. but that application
was rejected. In that application, a paper
mill was desired to be attached belonging
to the accused Rakesh Jain, but the C.J.M
concerned has rejected the application
vide order dated 28.6.2006 on the ground
that it was leased to one Anuj Jain. It
appears that the police and magistrate
both were passing time, which was in
favour of the accused.

2. Admittedly, the process under
Sect ion 82 Cr. P. C. has been exhausted
and
under
Section
83
Cr.P.C
the
moveable and immoveable properties of
the accused are to be attached. Learned
counsel for complainant-informant says
that besides paper mill, there are other
properties also belonging to the accused,
which may be attached. He is directed to
furnish details of the properties owned by
the accused before the C.J.M. concerned
at the earliest. The police is also directed
to trace out the properties of the accused
and inform the Magistrate concerned. The
Magistrate concerned is directed to take
immediate steps for attachment of the
properties of accused, so that pressure
may be built up for procuring their
attendance.

3. Learned Magistrate is also
directed to proceed, under Section 299
Cr.P.C. against the accused, if he is
satisfied that there is no immediate
prospects of arresting the accused after
passing a detailed order. Even if while
proceeding, under Section 299 Cr.P.C.,
the Magistrate gets information from the
police or complainant-informant about
existence
of
any
moveable
and
immoveable property of the accused,
there is no impediment in issuing as
attachment order.

4. Learned C.J.M. is directed to
submit his explanation about laches on his
part. The Investigating Officer/S.H.O.
concerned is also directed to be present in
this Court in person on 19.12.2006 to
apprise this Court about the steps taken by
them for arrest of the accused and or
identifying their properties.

5. The application for impleadment
of accused in this petition is also allowed
and they be impleaded as opposite parties
in this case.

6. List this case on 19.12.2006.

Let a copy of this order may be given
to learned A.G.A. within one week for
compliance.
---------