# Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and anr v. Civil Judge (Senior Deivision), Mathura and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 820
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7263 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-dilip-kumar-sharma-and-anr-v-civil-judge-senior-deivision-mathura-and-others-40211
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Procedure Code-Order 40 Rule 3
and 4- appointment of receiver-whether
a judicial officer could be appointed
receiver? Held-No.
Held- Para 14

Although
in
the
present
case,
the
receiver
was
appointed
on
the
application of plaintiff to which no
objection was filed by the defendant, a
judicial officer should not have been
appointed and should not have accepted
the office of receiver. A judicial officer is
not only a government servant under the
administrative control of the High Court,
but he also holds a position of status and
responsibility which requires him to
maintain
absolute
fairness
and
impartiality. His conduct both inside and
outside the court should be above board.
He is bound by the Conduct rules
applicable to government servants. He,
has
to
discharge
greater
sense
of
responsibility in performance of duties.
His actions and demeanor should be
impeccable. He cannot be permitted to
act in positions where his actions may be
subjected
to
scrutiny,
contempt
or
objected to by any of the parties.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
that the workman concerned will be
entitled only half of the wages from the
date of termination of his services till the
date of the award and thereafter he shall
be entitled to full back wages.

8. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition has no merit and
is
accordingly
dismissed
with
the
modification to the extent that the
workman concerned shall be entitled to
half back wages from the date of
termination of his services till the date of
the award and thereafter workman shall
be entitled for full back wages. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.8.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7263 of 2003

Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
Sri Satish Mandhyan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Nigam
Sri V.K. Burman
Sri Rahul Chaturvedi
Sri H.N. Pandey

Civil Procedure Code-Order 40 Rule 3
and 4- appointment of receiver-whether
a judicial officer could be appointed
receiver? Held-No.
Held- Para 14

Although
in
the
present
case,
the
receiver
was
appointed
on
the
application of plaintiff to which no
objection was filed by the defendant, a
judicial officer should not have been
appointed and should not have accepted
the office of receiver. A judicial officer is
not only a government servant under the
administrative control of the High Court,
but he also holds a position of status and
responsibility which requires him to
maintain
absolute
fairness
and
impartiality. His conduct both inside and
outside the court should be above board.
He is bound by the Conduct rules
applicable to government servants. He,
has
to
discharge
greater
sense
of
responsibility in performance of duties.
His actions and demeanor should be
impeccable. He cannot be permitted to
act in positions where his actions may be
subjected
to
scrutiny,
contempt
or
objected to by any of the parties.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. By this writ petition, Sri Dilip
Kumar Sharma, claiming himself to be
Secretary/Pradhan Mantri of Committee
of Management, Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti,
Bara Bazar, Goverdhan, Mathura (in short
'Society') and Sri Devendra Kumar
Sharma have prayed for a writ of
certiorari for quashing the plaint of
Original suit no. 332 of 1999 pending in
the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior
Division),
Mathura;
orders
dated
8.11.2002 appointing Dr. Rajesh Singh as
Receiver; and orders dated 20.12.2002
and 21.1.2003 by which the trial court has
denied non-Godhania Brahmins of Bara
Bazar, Goverdhan, Mathura from making
bid at the auction of income of Thakur
Giriraj Ji Maharaj Temple (in short
'Temple'). They have also prayed for a
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold
auction of the temple permitting both
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and anr. V. Civil Judge (Senior Deivision), Mathura and others 821
Gudhania and non-Gudhania Brahmins in
all future auctions of Tekas as per by-laws
and to issue any other writ, order or
direction.

2. Brief facts as set out in the writ
petition are stated as follows: Sri Giriraj Ji
Maharaj Temple was constructed at
Danghati, Goverdhan, by Sri Sankatha
Baba, a Adivasi Brahmin of Goverdhan.
After his death his heirs continued to
manage the temple and perform sevapuja
and bhograj which was subsequently
divided into four different parts known as
'thoks', namely Udho thok, Madho thok,
Murali thok and Narain thok. In the year
1957, a society was registered with a
constitution including the representatives
of all the aforesaid thoks. A twenty one
members committee is provided under the
by-laws consisting of 6: 3: 4: 4;
representatives of the aforesaid thoks and
these 17 representatives nominate 4
members. The members of the Committee
of Management include both Gudhania
and Non-Gudhania Brahmins of Bara
Bazar. It appears that some disputes arose
between the members and an Original
Suit no. 44 of 1970; Har Prasad and
others Vs. Giriraj and others was filed, in
which rights of the parties to have a share
in the management and the income of the
temple was in issue. The suit was
dismissed by order and decree dated
15.9.1977 against which a Civil Appeal
No. 281 of 1977 was filed. The appeal
was also dismissed on 13.11.1981. A
Second Appeal No. 649 of 1982 against
the aforesaid judgment and decree has
been filed and is pending before this
Court in which no interim orders have
been passed.

3. Elections to elect 17 members of
the committee of management were held
in the year 1998. These members
nominated four members in accordance
with constitution. Thereafter the election
of the office bearers of the committee of
management were held on 15.4.1998 in
which Sri Jamuna Prasad Kaushik was
elected as President and Govind Prasad
Purohit as Mantri. It is alleged that fresh
elections were held for election of
members
of
the
committee
of
management on 24.4.1999 in which
petitioner was elected as Matri/ Pradhan
Mantri and documents were sent to
Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies
Chits, Agra for registration and were
registered on 6.11.1999. Sri Govind
Prasad Purohit filed writ petition No.
48227 of 1999 which was disposed of
with direction of Registrar to refer the
matter under section 25 of the Act. The
Prescribed Authority by his order dated
11.2.2000 recorded finding that the
elections were invalid. Aggrieved Govind
Prasad Purohit has filed writ petition No.
9601 of 2000 which is still pending and
no interim orders has been passed. It is
contended that elections were also held in
2000 and in these elections also petitioner
Dilip
Kumar
Sharma
was
elected
Mantri/Pradhan Mantri. The documents
sent for registration, however, were
refused by the Deputy Registrar. It is
further contended that in the year 2001
once again petitioner was elected but the
list of newly duly elected members of the
committee was not accepted by the
Deputy Registrar.

4. Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 has
been filed by Sri Govind Prasad Purohit
claiming to be Mantri/ Pradhan Mantri of
the Samiti for permanent injunction
restraining defendants from interfering in
the rights of the plaintiff's society in
administration and management of the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
temple
and
specially
operation
of
accounts by Govind Prasad Purohit
Mantri, Bara Bazar, Goverdhan and for
holding meeting, Bhent, thoks and for any
other benefits which the court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case. An application for interim injunction
was initially rejected. A Misc. Appeal
No. 19 of 2000 was filed which was
allowed and the matter was remanded
back and in the meantime the parties were
directed to maintain status quo. Aggrieved
against the order petitioner filed writ
petition 6162 of 2001 which was
dismissed by this Court on 26.6.2001. A
contention was raised by petitioner in the
said writ petition that during the pendency
of the suit fresh elections have been held
and that appellate court was not justified
to grant any injunction. This Court while
dismissing the writ petition make it open
to petitioner to raise these points before
the Court concerned which has to
consider the matter afresh in pursuance of
the order of remand by appellate court.

5. On 27.2.2001, the defendants
informed the court that the High Court
has decided the matter on 26.2.2001. It
was pointed out to the court by the
plaintiff that the defendants want to
adjourn and delay the matter to continue
to receive the offerings in the temple. The
defendants offered to give statement of
account with effect from 16.10.2001
provided plaintiff also gives statement of
account up to 16.10.2000. Counsel for the
plaintiff agreed to give the accounts
provided the account books which have
been kept by the Station House Officer
Goverdhan under lock in temple area
given to him, and requested that the
Station House Officer may be required to
produce account books. The trial court
directed that plaintiff shall produce the
accounts up-to 16.10.2000. A direction
was issued to the Station House Officer
Goverdhan to submit his report whether
the account books are under his lock and
key. By the same order dated 27.2.2001,
defendants were also directed to submit
account
book
on
26.10.2000.
On
28.3.2001, the trial court found from the
report of the police that no such lock, as
alleged by plaintiff, has been put by
police on the temple and that the police
has no control over the temple premises
and the record room. Both the parties
agreed that senior Advocate Sri Lalta
Prasad Garg, may be appointed to prepare
a list of documents. With the consent of
parties, Sri Garg was appointed as
Commissioner to prepare the list of
account books with regard to realization
from 10.5.1999 to 16.10.2000 and to
produce them in court and also permit
both the parties to put their locks on the
room.

6. On 7.11.2002, the trial court
considered
the
application
of
the
defendants dated 28.10.2002 with a
prayer to appoint any senior judicial
officer as receiver of the temple. The
plaintiff did not object to the application.
On this application, the trial court directed
that the parties may approach the District
Judge, Mathura for appointment of any
judicial officer as receiver. The District
Judge nominated Dr. Rajesh Singh,
Additional
Chief Judicial
Magistrate
(Railways),
Mathura
and
on
his
nomination, with the consent of parties,
the Civil Judge appointed him on
8.11.2002 with the condition that his
appointment may be approved by the
High Court on the next date. On
13.11.2002, the trial court passed an order
that the receiver will take entire charge of
the temple from Naib Tehsildar, Mathura
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and anr. V. Civil Judge (Senior Deivision), Mathura and others 823
including books and accounts and is
permitted to spend up to Rs. 10,000/- for
the management of the temple. He was
permitted to take cooperation of one or
more persons for management and will be
authorised to auction the theka for every
month and deposit the amount in the bank
account of the temple.

7. Thereafter it appears that several
orders were passed with regard to giving
permissions
to
the
receiver
for
management of the temple and its
properties and for causing necessary
repairs for purchase of pumping sets etc.
and to pay salaries to a teacher of college
run by Society. The trial court did not
take any interest in disposal of application
for injunction, in pursuance of the remand
order passed by appellate court and
affirmed by this Court. On 20.12.2002, an
objection
was
taken
by
Gudhania
Brahmins that non-Gudhania Brahmins do
not have a right to participate in the
auction as customary auction can be
settled only in favour of Gudhania
Brahmins. The trial court found that since
only Gudhania Brahmins have been
taking theka in the past, as an interim
arrangement, only they will be allowed to
participate and fixed 24.12.2002 for
disposal of the application. Thereafter it
appears that the said interim arrangement
continued On 21.1.2003, the receiver
auctioned the theka for the period
23.1.2003 to 22.2.2003 for Rs. 7,78,000/-.
The said theka was approved by the trial
court. On 30.1.2003, the trail court
granted permission to receiver to purchase
certain articles of silver and idols and to
install
them
after
the
religious
ceremonies. It is at this stage that the
defendants have filed this writ petition to
quash the plaint and the orders for
appointment of receiver and for allowing
only Gudhania Brahmins to participate in
the theka.

On 17.2.2003 while issuing notice
this Court observed as follows:

"It is not desirable for a sitting
Judicial Officer to be appointed as a
'Receiver' on account of the fact (a) that
he is answerable to the Court, which is
the court of co-ordinate jurisdiction in the
same district; and (b) that he can also be
subjected to criminal liability and his
personal properties can be made liable in
case he fails to submit accounts or fails to
pay the amount or to any loss to the
property by his willful default or gross
negligence, as provided under Order 40
Rule 4, C.P.C. The parties shall address
the Court on the question whether a
sitting judicial officer can be appointed as
a 'Receiver' in any Court proceedings."

8. When the matter came up today, it
was found that no reply has been filed by
the receiver. Both the parties are not
interested in making submissions on the
question whether a sitting judicial officer
can be appointed in the court proceedings.
Both of them pointed out that Dr. Rajesh
Singh awaiting transfer orders, has
resigned and that in the meantime one Sri
Vineet Narain, Senior Journalist of
Hawala fame, has been appointed by the
trial court as receiver on 26.6.2003. Sri
B.D. Madhyan counsel for petitioner
made an application dated 7.7.2003
stating that Sri Vineet Narain has been
appointed receiver without issuing notice
to the defendants. It is contended that the
resignation of Dr. Rajesh Singh has been
accepted and Sri Vineet Narain has been
appointed receiver without issuing notice
to defendant only to circumvent the order
of this Court and that no notice was issued
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
nor any opportunity was given to make
objection to such appointment. It is
contended that new receiver has no
concern with the temple and is the own
man of respondent no. 3 and has been
appointed as receiver for their own
personal benefits. The orders dated
26.6.2003, annexed to the application,
shows that the trial court accepted the
resignation of Dr. Rajesh Singh and a
cheque of Rs. 1,100/- as donation to the
temple and accepted the application for
appointment of Sri Vineet Narain as
receiver, on his own offer. He was
permitted to spend Rs.5,000/- per month
for maintenance of temple. He was
appointed on the ground that Sri Vineet
Narain is senior journalist residing at
Vrindavan and is editor, Kalchakra,
Investigative, News Bureau.

9. This Court disposed of the
aforesaid application vide its order dated
14.7.2003 giving liberty to the defendantpetitioner to take objection with regard to
appointment of Vineet Narain as receiver
as may be open to him in law.

10. Sri B.D. Madhyan appearing for
petitioners, who were defendants in suit,
submits that plaintiff-respondent no. 3 has
no right to represent the society. The
elections set up by respondent no. 3, have
not
been
accepted
by
Prescribed
Authority vide order dated 11.2.2000 and
there is no order passed in the writ
petition against the order of the Prescribed
Authority under section 25 of Societies
Registration Act as amended in U.P. He
has not submitted any returns with regard
to elections in the year 1999,2000 and
2001 and thus the suit at his instance
claiming to be Mantri of the Society is not
maintainable. Respondent no. 3 has no
right to represent the society and its
affairs. Sri Madhyan further submits that
instead
of
deciding
the
injunction
application, in pursuance of the remand
order of the appellate court as affirmed by
this court, the trial court proceeded to
appoint receiver and acted illegal and
against the judicial norms in appointing a
sitting judicial officer as receiver of the
temple. He submits that the receiver
started acting illegally and against his
authorization in giving theka and carrying
out relegious functions for which he had
no authority. He excluded non-Gudhania
Brahmins from participating in the theka,
and after this court raised objection with
regard to appointment of judicial officer
as receiver, the resignation of Dr. Rajesh
Singh was accepted and Sri Vineet Narain
appointed without issuing notice or
inviting objection from petitioner, who is
the Secretary of the Society. According to
Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Petitioner is validly
elected General Secretary of the Society,
and has right to manage and administer
the affairs of the society and the temple.

11. Sri Manish Kumar Nigam
appearing for Sri Govind Prasad Purohit,
plaintiff-respondent no. 3, submits that
respondent no. 3 was elected as President
on 30.4.1999. His return was wrongly
accepted by the Deputy Registrar and that
the order of Prescribed Authority is still
under challenge before this Court in writ
Petition No. 9601 of 2000. He denies that
any election were held in 2000 and 2001
in which petitioner was elected as Mantri.
No election took place as alleged on
1.4.2001 and for office bearers on
8.4.2001. It is submitted by him that in
suit no. 44 of 1970 issues were framed
between the parties to the effect whether
plaintiff Har Prasad and others had a right
to share in the management and the
income of the temple and whether the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma and anr. V. Civil Judge (Senior Deivision), Mathura and others 825
Brahmins of Gudhania and Kunchangia
set alone have a right to manage and share
in the offerings. The suit was dismissed.
An appeal was also dismissed and the
Second Appeal No. 639 of 1982 is
pending.
According
to
Sri
Nigam,
findings was recorded by both the courts
below in the said suit that only Gudhania
Brahmins had a right to manage and take
part in the thekas. He submits that
receiver was appointed with the consent
of the parties and that no objection was
taken to the management by the receiver.
According to Sri Nigam Sri Vineet Narain
Senior Journalist of Hawala fame is
public spirited person. The defendants
have not taken any objection to his
appointment as receiver before the trial
Court.

12. After hearing counsel for parties
and perusing the record, I find that the
trial court has completely misdirected
itself and took extra-ordinary interest to
appoint receiver and to continue theka
without making any effort to decide the
application for interim injunction which
includes the right of the plaintiff to
represent the society and to file a suit.
There have been certain disputes with
regard to rights of the parties in the past
belonging to Gudhania and non-Gudhania
Brahmins. The original suit No. 44 of
1970 filed by Late Sri Har Prasad and
others was dismissed and the judgment
and decree was affirmed in appeal. The
issues with regard to the rights of
different sets on the management were
subject matter of consideration and
decided in the said suit. It was held that
the constitution of the society in the year
1977 was in respect of Gudhania and
Kuchania Brahmins alone and it was only
they had right to the exclusion of that
non-Gudhania Brahmins. The constitution
of the society dated 14.3.1997 was upheld
by
the
Court.
The
non-Gudhania
Brahmins were not held to have a right for
realising of amount. Section 92 C.P.C. did
not operate a bar to the institution of the
suit. These findings are still subject matter
of second appeal. Prima facie these
findings operate as resjudicata between
parties for managing the affairs of the
temple.

13. A receiver can be appointed
under Order 40 Rule 1, C.P.C. where it
appears to be just and convenient whether
before or after decree for management,
protection, preservation and improvement
of the suit property. Remuneration has to
be fixed under Rule 2 and its enforcement
is provided under Rule 3 & 4. Receiver,
however, should not be appointed without
ascertaining the right of plaintiff to file a
suit. Where right of the plaintiff to
maintain the action and his locus standi to
represent the society is in question, the
trial court must decide the same before
appointing a receiver, unless the trial
court finds that the delay in such disposal
will defeat the purpose or will result into
waste or gross mismanagement. In the
present case, the application for interim
injunction was rejected. The appeal was
allowed and remanded for deciding
injunction application afresh. This Court
affirmed the order. The trial court as such
ought to have first decided injunction
application. Both the parties could not
show the reasons as to why the trial court
instead of deciding injunction application,
which
necessarily
required
him
to
consider the right of Sri Govind Prasad
Purohit
to
represent
the
society,
proceeded to appoint a receiver. The
record shows that after appointment of
receiver, the Trial Court did not take any
steps in fixing the application for interim
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
injunction for hearing and got busy in
deciding applications moved by the
receiver from time to time and in
arranging for monthly thekas. He did not
even
care
to
decide
the
application/objection for giving rights to
non-Godhania Brahmins for participating
in thekas.

14. Before concluding the matter
and issuing orders for deciding injunction
application, it is necessary to consider
petitioner's objections of the plaintiff with
regard to appointment of a sitting judicial
officer as receiver in respect of a dispute
relating to the management of the society
or temple. Although in the present case,
the receiver was appointed on the
application of plaintiff to which no
objection was filed by the defendant, a
judicial officer should not have been
appointed and should not have accepted
the office of receiver. A judicial officer is
not only a government servant under the
administrative control of the High Court,
but he also holds a position of status and
responsibility which requires him to
maintain
absolute
fairness
and
impartiality. His conduct both inside and
outside the court should be above board.
He is bound by the Conduct rules
applicable to government servants. He has
to
discharge
greater
sense
of
responsibility in performance of duties.
His actions and demeanor should be
impeccable. He cannot be permitted to act
in positions where his actions may be
subjected
to
scrutiny,
contempt
or
objected to by any of the parties. The
nature of duties of receiver as enjoined by
Rule 3 requires him to furnish security if
any court deem fit. He is required to
submit accounts of such periods and in
such forms as the court directs and pay
amount due from him as the court may
direct. Rule 3 (d) holds him responsible
for any loss occasioned to the property by
his willful default or negligence. These
duties can be enforced under Rule 4 by
attachment and sale of his personal
properties. Apart from the attachment and
sale he can also be held liable for his
actions by taking criminal proceedings.
Although a collector has been provided to
be appointed as receiver under Rule 5,
where any property is land paying
revenue to the Government, a judicial
officer should not submit himself to such
unwanted risk of making him subject of
scrutiny, criticism, recovery or criminal
liability. In case of private disputes
allegations may be easily levelled against
the receiver. In such cases his conduct in
discharge of his duties will become
subject matter of scrutiny by an officer of
either same rank or of higher or lower
rank. In the said event it will be
embarrassing from a brother judicial
officer to examine his conduct. It is,
therefore, in the interest of justice and fair
play that a serving judicial officer should
not be appointed as a receiver by any
court of law. In the present case Dr.
Rajesh Singh, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate
(Railway)
Mathura
was
appointed as receiver. This Court takes
strong exception and directs that in view
of the aforesaid discussion henceforth no
serving judicial officer of any rank should
be appointed or continued as receiver by
any subordinate court. A copy of this
order may be given to the Registrar
General for communication to all the
District Judges in the State.

15. In the present case since this
Court has already given opportunity to the
counsel for defendant to object to the
appointment of the receiver Sri Vineet
Narain no further orders requires to be
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Bharosey V. State of U.P.
827
passed in respect of his appointment. The
averments in paragraph 27 of the Counter
affidavit of Sri Govind Prasad Purohit
shows that on account of theka given to
non Gudhania Brahmins some tension
was prevailing and proceeding under
section 107/116 and 145,146, Cr.P.C.
were initiated. Notices were sent and
police report was obtained on 2.8.2002. In
the circumstances the Court does not
propose to interfere with the order of
appointment of receiver.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the
writ petition is partly allowed. The Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is
directed to decide the pending injunction
application in suit no. 332 of 1999 as
expeditiously
as
possible
preferably
within
two
months.
In
deciding
application, he will decide whether the
plaintiff have any prima facie case and
shall also consider the balance of
convenience and fact of hardship to any
of the parties. He will take into account
the findings given by the courts between
the parties in previous litigation and also
consider whether any of the parties has a
right to manage the temple under the
constitution of the Society. There shall be
no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE U.S. TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE D.P. GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 1981

Ram Bharosey

...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.B.L. Gaur
Sri R.P. Singh
Sri Ravindra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Indian Panel Code 1860, Section 302,102
I.P.C.- Criminal appeal-Deceased body
recovered from well-No eye witness
enmity proved-based on circumstantial
evidence-Deceased lastly seen in the
company
of
appellant-prosecution
proved motive to commit murder extra
judicial confession also proved-Appeal
dismissed.

Held- Para 32
Taking
above
circumstances
cumulatively
it
was
proved
that
appellant Ram Bharosey out of grudge
against Dinesh and his brothers took
Dinesh deceased on the evening of
24.2.1981, murdered him by causing
injury by khurpi, and threw his dead
body into the
well of
Tara Singh
Pradhan. There is no explanation from
the side of appellant that after 5 p.m. on
24.2.1981
he
left
the
company
of
deceased
and
the
deceased
was
murdered by some one else. If the
prosecution proved that the deceased
was last seen in the company of
appellant and thereafter, his dead body
was recovered from the well of Tara
Singh Pradhan on the clue provided by
the appellant, it was duty of the
appellant to establish that after 5 p.m.
on 24.2.1981 he had left the company of
deceased. No such explanation has come
forward from the side of appellant.
Case law:
AIR 1984 S.C. 1622
2002 (8) SCC 45

(Delivered by Hon'ble U.S. Tripathi, J.)

1. This appeal has been directed
against the judgement and order dated
28.7.1981 passed by the then VIIIth