# State of U.P v. Mool Chandra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-12
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2103 of 1992
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-mool-chandra-ors-49651
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 378(3) -
Appeal in case of acquittal, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Murder -
Powers of the appellate Court against an
order of acquittal - while exercising
appellate powers, even if two reasonable
views/conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court - in acquittal appeals, the appellate
Court is not required to rewrite the
judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
when the reasons assigned by the Court
below are found to be just and proper.
(Para -12,17)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378(93) -
Appeal in case of acquittal - appellate
court is reversing the trial court's order of
acquittal, it should give proper weight and
consideration
to
the
presumption
of
innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial court - judgment of acquittal,
where two views are possible, should not
be set aside, even if view formed by
appellate court may be a more probable
one, interference with acquittal can only
be justified when it is based on a perverse
view. (Para -21)

Four accused persons - three accused died -
appeal decided against surviving accused - TrialCourt rightly appreciated evidence on record -
Case against accused under Section 34 of I.P.C.
made out - chain incomplete - finding of Court
below - scanty evidence - accused cannot be
punished and or convicted for the offences for
which they are charged - acquittal - hence
appeal.(Para - 22,23)

HELD:- Factual scenario in the present case will
not permit court to take a different view then
that taken by the court below. Concur the
findings of the court below. Record and
proceedings sent back to Court below. (Para24,25)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on appreciation of entire evidence on
record, which cannot be substituted by this
Court by taking a different view as per the
law discussed above.

20. From the discussion made
hereinabove, the government appeal stands
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 268
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2103 of 1992

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Mool Chandra & Ors.
 ...Accused-Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Sharma

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 378(3) -
Appeal in case of acquittal, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Murder -
Powers of the appellate Court against an
order of acquittal - while exercising
appellate powers, even if two reasonable
views/conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court - in acquittal appeals, the appellate
Court is not required to rewrite the
judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
when the reasons assigned by the Court
below are found to be just and proper.
(Para -12,17)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 378(93) -
Appeal in case of acquittal - appellate
court is reversing the trial court's order of
acquittal, it should give proper weight and
consideration
to
the
presumption
of
innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial court - judgment of acquittal,
where two views are possible, should not
be set aside, even if view formed by
appellate court may be a more probable
one, interference with acquittal can only
be justified when it is based on a perverse
view. (Para -21)

Four accused persons - three accused died -
appeal decided against surviving accused - TrialCourt rightly appreciated evidence on record -
Case against accused under Section 34 of I.P.C.
made out - chain incomplete - finding of Court
below - scanty evidence - accused cannot be
punished and or convicted for the offences for
which they are charged - acquittal - hence
appeal.(Para - 22,23)

HELD:- Factual scenario in the present case will
not permit court to take a different view then
that taken by the court below. Concur the
findings of the court below. Record and
proceedings sent back to Court below. (Para24,25)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St. of
Kerala & anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39

2. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karn., (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415

3. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr., (2007)
3 S.C.C. 75

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors., 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mool Chandra & Ors.
269
5. Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s Vs St. of MP,
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors., (2009)
SCC 749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs St. Representatives by
the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013
SC 321

8. St. of Karn. Vs Hemareddy, AIR 1981, SC
1417

9. hivasharanappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., JT
2013 (7) SC 66

10. St. of Punj. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn., (2018) 7 SCC
219

12. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St. of Guj.,
(2020) 14 SC 750

13. Samsul Haque Vs St. of Assam, (2019) 18
SCC 161

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar
Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of
Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), at
the behest of the State, has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 24.8.1992,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.4, Etah, in Session Trial No.205 of
1990 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Moolchandra
and others ), under Sections 302/34 of IPC,
Police Station-Malavan, District Etah, whereby
the learned trial-court acquitted the accusedrespondent. Accused respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4
have died and the counsel for accused -
respondents
has
also
given
abatement
application which is taken on record. Appeal
qua respondent Nos 1, 2 & 4 stands abated.

2. The brief facts of this case are that
complainant Lakshman Singh and his son
Tara Singh, r/o village Dalelpur Police
station Malawan, District Etah used to
water their fields from Government Gool.
On 22.4.90, Lakshman Singh and his son
Tara
Singh
(deceased)
reached
at
Government Gool to fetch water for their
field and at around 2:00 p.m while they
were fetching water for their field, accusedMoolchandra who is cousin(son of real
brother
of
complainant's
father)
of
complainant Lakshman Singh arrived there
and said that he shall not allow them to
fetch water from this Gool as he takes
water from it for his engine and threatened
them
with
dire
consequences
if
they(complainant and deceased) chose to
remain there. Out of fear, Lakshman Singh
and his son deceased-Tara Singh proceeded
towards their house. Thereafter, accused
Moolchandra called his sons, namely,
Bharat Singh and Ramveer Singh as well as
his wife Lado. On being called, Bharat
Singh, Smt. Lado and Ramveer Singh
arrived there armed with knife, lathi as well
as stick and grabbed deceased-Tara Singh.
All the accused surrounded the deceased
and accused-Bharat Singh stabbed him with
knife on his chest due to which injured
Tara Singh collapsed on the road near
Babool tree. On hearing cries, Anganlal,
Sumer Singh and Badan along with
numerous
other
individuals
saved
complainant
Lakshman
Singh
after
reaching there and witnessed the aforesaid
incident. Tara Singh died on the spot. The
accused namely Bharat Singh, Ramveer
and Moolchandra fled from the spot on
seeing the villagers and Smt Lado was
caught there itself. The complaint of this
incident was got written by Phool Singh
and the same was submitted at Malwan
police station on that very day itself ie. on
22-4-90 by complainant of the case and the
case was registered against the accused in
the evening at 5.10 on the basis of the
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
written complaint information exhibit Ka-1.
Its chik/FIR is marked as exhibit Ka-11 and
entry of the case was made in the General
Diary (G.D.), the carbon copy of which is
exhibit Ka-(sic.). The investigation of this
case was taken up by Sri C.R. Malik, the
Police Sub Inspector. On getting the
information he recorded the statements of
the complainant of the case Lakshman
Singh and prepared the inquest report
exhibit Ka-3 at the place of occurrence.
The site-map exhibit Ka-4 was prepared by
him after carrying out the spot inspection.
The dead body of the deceased Tara Singh
was sealed and then it was sent for post
mortem examination and all the necessary
papers were prepared in this regard. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded
and thereafter the investigation was taken
over by Sri Baburam Verma S.O. and he
submitted charge-sheet in the court against
the accused on 11-5-1990.

3. On the basis of this written report, a
case was registered against all the accused
including Mool Chandra. After registration of
the case, the investigation followed. The
Investigating Officer recorded the statements
of the complainant and other witnesses,
visited the site and prepared the site-plan.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer
of the case submitted charge-sheet against the
accused-Mool Chandra.

4. Accused-Mool Chandra and others
were charged under Sections 302/34 of the
IPC. The case being exclusively triable by
court of session was committed for trial to the
court of session by competent Magistrate.
Accused person denied charges and claimed
to be tried.

5. To bring home the charges, the
prosecution produced following witnesses,
namely:
1
Laxman Singh
PW 1
2
Summer Singh
PW 2
3
Dr.V.K. Gupta
PW 3
4
Babu Ram Verma
PW 4

6. In support of the ocular version of
the witnesses, following documents were
produced and contents were proved by
leading evidence:

1
Written Report
Ex.ka 1
2
Postmortum Report
Ex.ka 2
3
Panchayatnama
Ex.ka 3
4
Site plan
Ex.ka 4
5
Photographs of dead
body
Ex.ka 8
6
G.D. Report
Ex.ka 12

7. After prosecution evidence, the
accused person was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he told that
false evidence has been led against him.

8. We have heard Vikas Goswami,
learned AGA for the State-appellant, Sri
Rajeev
Sharma,
learned
counsel
for
accused- respondent no.3 and perused the
record.

9. Before we embark on testimony
and the judgment of the Court below, the
contours
for
interfering
in
Criminal
Appeals where accused has been held to be
non guilty would require to be discussed.

10. The principles, which would
govern and regulate the hearing of an
appeal by this Court against an order of
acquittal, passed by the trial Court, have
been very succinctly explained by the Apex
Court in catena of decisions. In the case of
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39,
the Apex Court has narrated the powers of
the High Court in appeal against the order
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mool Chandra & Ors.
271
of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the
Apex Court has observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court
entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even
while exercising an appellate power
against a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court should have borne in mind the well
settled principles of law that where two
view are possible, the appellate Court
should not interfere with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Court below."

11.

Further,
in
the
case
of
Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex
Court laid down the following principles;

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

[2]
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

[3] Various expressions, such
as,"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasis the
reluctance of an appellate Court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the Court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
there is double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court.

[5] If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court."

12. Thus, it is a settled principle that
while exercising appellate powers, even if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions
are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.

13. Even in the case of State of Goa
vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported
in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has
reiterated the powers of the High Court in
such cases. In para 16 of the said decision,
the Court has observed as under:

"16.
From
the
aforesaid
decisions, it is apparent that while
exercising the powers in appeal against the
order of acquittal the Court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the
order of acquittal unless the approach of
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrived at would not be arrived at by any
reasonable person and, therefore, the
decision is to be characterized as perverse.
Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view
which would upset the judgment delivered
by the Court below. However, the appellate
Court has a power to review the evidence if
it is of the view that the conclusion arrived
at by the Court below is perverse and the
Court has committed a manifest error of
law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the appellate
Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on
record to find out whether any of the
accused is connected with the commission
of the crime he is charged with."

14. Similar principle has been laid
down by the Apex Court in cases of State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and
others, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of
MP, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the
powers, which this Court may exercise
against an order of acquittal, are well
settled.

15. In the case of Luna Ram vs.
Bhupat Singh and others, reported in
(2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10
and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted
that the prosecution version was not clearly
believable. Some of the so called eye
witnesses stated that the deceased died
because his ankle was twisted by an
accused.
Others
said
that
he
was
strangulated. It was the case of the
prosecution that the injured witnesses were
thrown out of the bus. The doctor who
conducted the postmortem and examined
the witnesses had categorically stated that
it was not possible that somebody would
throw a person out of the bus when it was
in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters
of appeal against the judgment of acquittal,
we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot
be termed to be perverse and is a possible
view on the evidence."

16. Even in a recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and
another vs. State Representatives by the
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported
in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in
para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the
trial Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence led in by the
prosecution and defence, acquitted the
accused in respect of the charges leveled
against them. On appeal by the State, the
High Court, by impugned order, reversed
the said decision and convicted the accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel
for the appellants very much emphasized
that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of
acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the
scope and power of the High Court in an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal.
This Court in a series of decisions has
repeatedly laid down that as the first
appellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
was also entitled, and obliged as well, to
scan through and if need be reappreciate
the entire evidence, though while hoosing
to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mool Chandra & Ors.
273
of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one
more possible or a different view only.
Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the
appeal is concerned, no distinctions or
differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely
because one was against conviction or the
other against an acquittal. [Vide State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others,
(2004) 5 SCC 573]"

17. It is also a settled legal position
that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court
is not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper. Such principle is laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR
1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:

" ... This Court has observed in
Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate
Court on the evidence to repeat the
narration of the evidence or to reiterate the
reasons given by the trial Court expression
of general agreement with the reasons
given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

18. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shivasharanappa and
others vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7)
SC 66 has held as under:

"That
appellate
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate the entire
evidence, though, certain other principles
are also to be adhered to and it has to be
kept in mind that acquittal results into
double presumption of innocence."

19. Further, in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex Court has
held as under:

"The law on the issue is well
settled that demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non for constituting an offence
under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict
the accused when substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable, unless there is
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily
as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by
the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt,
in the absence of any evidence with regard
to demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the
statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that
the money was accepted by him, other than
as a motive or reward as referred to in
Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the
court
is
required
to
consider
the
explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and not on the touchstone of
proof
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt.
However, before the accused is called upon
to explain how the amount in question was
found in his possession, the foundational
facts
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution.
The
complainant
is
an
interested and partisan witness concerned
with the success of the trap and his
evidence must be tested in the same way as
that of any other interested witness. In a
proper case, the court may look for
independent
corroboration
before
convincing the accused person."
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. The Apex Court recently in
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018)
7 SCC 219, has laid down the principles for
laying down the powers of appellate court
in re-appreciating the evidence in a case
where the State has preferred an appeal
against acquittal, which read as follows:

"10. It is by now well settled that
the Appellate Court hearing the appeal
filed against the judgment and order of
acquittal will not overrule or otherwise
disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the
Appellate Court does not find substantial
and compelling reasons for doing so. If the
Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the
facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's
decision was based on erroneous view of
law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely
to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if
the entire approach of the Trial Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if
the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of the ballistic expert
etc. the same may be construed as
substantial and compelling reasons and the
first appellate court may interfere in the
order of acquittl. However, if the view
taken by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused is one of the possible views
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Appellate Court generally will not
interfere with the order of acquittal
particularly
in
the
absence
of
the
aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to
note the observations of this Court in the
case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath
Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which
reads thus:

"21.There is no embargo on the
appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not
be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden
thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases
is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable
to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible
evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate
court
to
re-appreciate
the
evidence in a case where the accused has
been
acquitted,
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not."

21. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that the
appellate court is reversing the trial court's
order of acquittal, it should give proper
weight and consideration to the presumption
of innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court and in Samsul Haque v. State
of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 held that
judgment of acquittal, where two views are
possible, should not be set aside, even if view
formed by appellate court may be a more
probable one, interference with acquittal can
only be justified when it is based on a
perverse view.
2 All. Smt. Sabira Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275

22.

Learned
trial-court
rightly
appreciated the evidence on record. The
evidence produced by prosecution does not
inspire confidence as held by learned trial
Judge and sifting oral testimony, we have
come to the conclusion that the case against
accused under Section 34 of I.P.C. made
out.

23. We have perused the depositions of
prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence
supporting
ocular
versions,
arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
We have been taken through the record. We
are unable to accept the submissions of the
State counsel for the following reasons and
the judgments of the Apex Court which lay
down the criteria for consideration of appeals
against acquittal. The chain has been found to
be incomplete. While going through the
judgment it is very clear that the court below
has given a categorical finding that the
evidence is so scanty that the accused cannot
be punished and or convicted for the offences
for which they are charged. The factual
scenario in the present case will not permit us
to take a different view then that taken by the
court below. In that view of the matter we are
unable to satisfy ourselves. Thus we concur
the findings of the court below.

24. After considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case and
appraisal of the evidence available on record
and on the contours laid down by the
judgment of the Apex Court, we have no
other option but to concur with the reasoning
of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions
Judge for the aforesaid reasons.

25. The appeal sans merits and is
dismissed. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the Court below. The bail and
bail bonds are cancelled.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 275
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 3034 of 2022

Smt. Sabira Begum ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhay Pratap Yadav, Shiv Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Forest Act, 1927 -
Sections 52, 52-A & 52-B - Confiscation of
vehicle - Power to seize property, when
can be exercised - No order is there
indicating that the vehicle, in question,
was being used in committing of forest
offence - Effect - Held, the officer seizing
the property under the provisions of the
Act 1927, more particularly Section 52(1)
of the Act read with Section 52A of the Act
1927 can seize such forest produce
alongwith the tools including the vehicles
that have been used in committing of a
forest offence. Thus, at the time of
seizure, it would have to be recorded that
the vehicle and other tools which have
been
seized,
were
being
used
in
committing the forest offence - High
Court held seizure of vehicle was against
the provisions of the Act, 1927. (Para 23
and 24)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Assistant Forest Conservator & ors. Vs Sharad
Ramchandra Kale; (1998) 1 SCC 48
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)