# Sonveer @ Sonu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 1044
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-10-05
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonveer-sonu-v-state-of-u-p-40581
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439. Bail
Application-offence
under
section
307/504 IPC-applicant caused injury-on
the chest at the door of the injuredinjury gravious in nature-caused by
knife-spot
arrest
applicant
also
sustained three simple injury during
course of arrest-no material shown to
about self defence-Right of self defence
shall be considered at the stage of trailheld-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 8

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and the submission made by
the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned A.G.A. and considering the
fact that the applicant caused the injury
on the person of the injured on the chest
at his door by using the knife blow, the
injury was grievous in nature and the
applicant was arrested on the spot along
with the knife and during the course of
his arrested, the applicant had also
sustained 3 simple injuries, the F.I.R.
was promptly lodged and there is no
material to show that the applicant was
having any right of self defence as such,
the plea of self defence if taken shall be
considered at the stage if trial therefore,
without expressing any option on the
merit of the case, the applicant is not
entitled for bail.

## Text

1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
terminus then the authority, on an
application,
will
find
out
whether
variation or extension will serve the
convenience of the public or not and then
allow without treating the same as
separate permit. In the instant case,
factually 8 Kms. to 22 Kms. are the
distances extended on the basis of the
applications of the petitioners, therefore,
by virtue of such distance being within
the 24 Kms. from the terminus the
petitioners' cases are squarely covered by
the proviso but not by the original part of
the provision. In such case question of
levy of fees does not arise.

8. That apart the further question is
whether the levy is levy of fees or levy of
tax? According to us, the route tax has
already been imposed and the authority
either recovered or recovering from the
respective owners of the transports.
Therefore, there can not be further
question of tax. The collection of levy has
to be treated as fees. Admittedly "fees"
can be collected following the principles
of quid pro quo, meaning thereby the
recovery of fees for the service rendered
by the authority. In the present case, no
such situation arose. Therefore, "fees", if
any, levied by the authority upon the
petitioners is nothing but "tax". Hence,
the petitioners are victim of double
taxation. The same is not permissible
under the law. In case of fiscal statute,
authority has to be much more careful in
connection with imposition of fees, tax,
etc. otherwise the same will be treated to
be unjust enrichment. In AIR 1984 SC 9
(supra) Section 57 (8) of the old law was
exhaustively considered by the Supreme
Court and held that short extension of
route can not be construed as a new
permit. Section 57 (8) of the old Act is
pari materia with Section 80 (3) of the
present Act. Therefore, interpretation of
the Supreme Court is fully applied in this
case. Moreover, this is not a case,
whereunder the notice of imposition of
levy has been challenged beforehand
without payment of the sum. It is a case
where the petitioners were forced to make
such payment. Therefore, without going
into the other controversy whether the
essential fiscal provision is inbuilt under
the Act in respect of recovery of such
fees, we have to hold and say that the
authority has no power to levy "fees" over
and above tax without quid pro quo as
explained by the Supreme Court in AIR
1984 SC 9 (supra).

9. Hence, we declare that the
authority
has
unjustly
enriched
themselves by levying fees upon the
petitioners. The State has no authority to
collect
or
withhold
the
said
sum.
Therefore, the note/ notice of demand to
deposit such sum is cancelled. If any one
deposited the sum under threat of such
notice, the same is refundable and the
concerned respondent authority is hereby
directed to refund the same at the earliest
but not beyond the period of three months
from this date. However, since the public
exchequer will be affected, no interest is
imposed on such refund, if made within
the period. But if not, the same will be
refunded with the interest at the rate of
12% per annum being simple rate as this
Court found reasonable. Thus, the writ
petition is allowed.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

(Justice Amitava Lala)
I agree.
(Justice Sanjay Misra)
Dated: 05.10.2005
Petition allowed.
---------
3 All] Sonveer @ Sonu V. State of U.P.
1045
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11860 of 2005

Sonveer @ Sonu
...Applicant (IN JAIL).
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sunil Chandra Srivastava
Sri Nitin Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Sunil Vashisth
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439. Bail
Application-offence
under
section
307/504 IPC-applicant caused injury-on
the chest at the door of the injuredinjury gravious in nature-caused by
knife-spot
arrest
applicant
also
sustained three simple injury during
course of arrest-no material shown to
about self defence-Right of self defence
shall be considered at the stage of trailheld-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 8

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and the submission made by
the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned A.G.A. and considering the
fact that the applicant caused the injury
on the person of the injured on the chest
at his door by using the knife blow, the
injury was grievous in nature and the
applicant was arrested on the spot along
with the knife and during the course of
his arrested, the applicant had also
sustained 3 simple injuries, the F.I.R.
was promptly lodged and there is no
material to show that the applicant was
having any right of self defence as such,
the plea of self defence if taken shall be
considered at the stage if trial therefore,
without expressing any option on the
merit of the case, the applicant is not
entitled for bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Chandra
Srivastava and Nitin Srivastava learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Bashishth,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant and the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant has applied for bail
in Case Crime No. 68 of 2005 under
Section 307 and 504 I.P.C. P.S. Saroorpur
District Meerut.

3. From the perusal of the record, it
reveals that in the present case, the F.I.R.
was lodged by one Mangey Ram at police
station Saroorpur, District Meerut on
01.04.2005 at 8.10 P.M., in respect of the
incident
which
had
occurred
on
01.04.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. The
distance of the police station was about 4
Km. from alleged place of occurrence.

4. The prosecution story in brief is
that the applicant was outraging the
modesty of the girls. He was asked by the
injured Krishna Pal not to do so about 4-5
months prior to the alleged occurrence.
On 01.04.2005 at about 6.30 P.M., the
injured Krishna Pal was standing at the
door of his house. The applicant come
there and started hurling the abuses. On
that shouting, the first informant, his son
and some other women came out from the
house. The applicant used knife blow on
the person of the injured with an intention
to commit his murder, consequently he
received injury but the applicant having a
knife was apprehended by the first
informant and other in scuffling and
snatching the knife, the first informant has
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
also received the knife injuring in the
fingures of his left hand. After receiving
the injuries, the condition of the injured
Krishna Pal became serious so he was
taken to Meerut by Om Pal, Vishnu Pal
Brahm Singh and others by Maruti Car.
The first informant and his son Sonu and
other villagers have taken to the applicant
along with his knife to the police station
in a Jeep, where the F.I.R. was lodged and
the applicant was taken into custody by
the police. Accordingly by the medical
examination report, the injured had
received incised wound 2cm * 1cm
*depth not probed present over 6th
intercostals space at 5 O'clock position of
nipple was done. Supplementary Medical
Examination report shows that this injury
received by the injured was grievous in
nature.

5. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that even
according to the prosecution version, the
applicant used only one knife blow. There
is no allegation in respect of the repetition
of the knife blows and there was no
motive or intention for the applicant to
commit the murder of the injured,
thereafter offence under Section 307
I.P.C. is not made out. At the most, the
offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is made
out, which is a bailable.

6. It is further contended that the
applicant was also medically examined on
2.4.2005 at 11.20 A.M. at P.H.C.
Saroorpur
Khurd,
Meerut.
He
was
brought by the police. He had received 3
injuries in which injury no.1 was a
contusion over the left side of face, injury
No.2 was a contusion on interior side of
right wrist joint and injury no.3 is a
contusion over the post surface of right
thumb. It is contented that the applicant
has also received injury in the said
incident. The right of the self defence was
available to him and his injuries were not
explained.

7. It is opposed by the learned
A.G.A. by submitting that in the present
case, the injury was caused by the
applicant by using the knife blow at the
door of the injured with an intention to
commit his murder. The injury was
grievous in nature and there was no
opportunity for the applicant to repeat the
knife blow because he was apprehended
immediately after the use of the first blow
of knife, therefore, the offence under Sect.
307 I.P.C. is clearly made out. It is further
contended
that
according
to
the
prosecution version, there had been
scuffle between the applicant and the
other person and in scuffling, his knife
was snatched and he was arrested on the
spot in the course of his arrest he received
3 contusions, which were on the face
wrist joint and outer surface of right
thumb. Which were simple in nature in
such circumstances, a right of self defence
was not available to the applicant. The
applicant was arrested on the spot at the
time of committing the offence, the
chance of his false implications is ruled
out, therefore, he does not deserve for
bail.

8. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
submission made by the learned counsel
for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
and considering the fact that the applicant
caused the injury on the person of the
injured on the chest at his door by using
the knife blow, the injury was grievous in
nature and the applicant was arrested on
the spot along with the knife and during
the course of his arrested, the applicant
3 All] Union of India and others V. Dukkhi Lal and another
1047
had also sustained 3 simple injuries, the
F.I.R. was promptly lodged and there is
no material to show that the applicant was
having any right of self defence as such,
the plea of self defence if taken shall be
considered at the stage if trial therefore,
without expressing any option on the
merit of the case, the applicant is not
entitled for bail.

According this bail application is
rejected at this stage.
Application rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14177 of 2001

Union of India and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Dukkhi Lal and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Govind Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjay Kumar
S.C.

(A) Industrial Dispute Act 1947-S-25-NRe-appointment-after
two
years
working-petitioner,
employee
retrinched-termination order remained
unchallenged-No appointment could be
made only on the basis of seniority listprepared under Rule 77-petitioner, were
allowed to participate in the screening
test but not succeeded despite of the
direction of Tribunal-the Department
failed
to
produce
the
guidelinesprescribing procedure for screening testtribunal rightly drawn adverse inference
against the department-direction for reappointment/regularization upheld.

Held: Para 20,21,22 and 23

The present case is required to be
considered in the light of the aforesaid
settled
legal
propositions.
Petitioner
worked from 1984 to 1986 for a period
of 2 years and was retrenched. He never
challenged the termination of his service.
At the most, petitioner could claim the
relief available to him under Section 25G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 or his case could be considered
for re-employment in accordance with
the seniority list prepared under Rule 77
of
the
Industrial
Disputes
Rules
whenever
the
vacancy
occurred.
Petitioner
did
not
challenge
the
termination order. As per the scheme
framed by the Department his case was
considered. Petitioner appeared in the
test, but could not pass the same.

The Tribunal allowed the claim of the
employee drawing adverse inference
against
the
Department
for
not
producing the policy under which the
test
was
conducted
and
record
of
selection. We find no force in the
submissions made by Shri Govind Saran,
learned counsel for the petitioners that
there was no occasion for the learned
Tribunal to draw the adverse inference
as the said record was not relevant to
determine the controversy.

In Mst Ramrati Kuer Vs. Dwarika Prasad
Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1134, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in case of
withholding
the
material
evidence,
adverse can be drawn by the Court
against a party who possesses the
evidence, but does not produced the
same in spite of the order of the Court. A
similar view has been reiterated in Indira
Kaur Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC
1074 and Mohinder Kaur Vs. Kusam
Anand, AIR 2000 SC 1745.

In the instant case the Tribunal has
recorded a finding of fact as under: