# State of U.P v. Ram Raksh Pal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 691
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-26
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 71 of 1988
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-ram-raksh-pal-ors-52888
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Viresh Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Sessions
Judge committed any legal infirmity, perversity,
or manifest error in acquitting the accused -
respondents of charge u/s 302 read with s. 34
of Indian Penal Code, and whether the
appreciation of evidence by Trial Court was so
unreasonable
or
contrary
to
the
settled
principles governing appeals against acquittal as
to warrant interference by the High Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302/34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - The
prosecution case originates from a written
report
dated
19.09.1984
lodged
by
Hemant Kumar, son of the deceased Ram
Kripal Gupta, alleging that due to longstanding
civil
and
criminal
disputes
relating to property and construction
matters between the deceased and the
accused persons, namely Ram Rakshpal
Gupta, Rama Kant and Diwan Chand
Thareja, relations between the parties had
become strained - It was alleged that on
the said date, while the deceased was
returning home on a bicycle along with his
sons and a companion after visiting the
Moradabad Development Authority, two
motorcycles intercepted them near F.T.S.
College Road, whereupon the accused
Rama Kant and Diwan Chand Thareja
allegedly fired at the deceased with
pistols, causing his instantaneous death,
after which all the accused fled from the
spot - On the basis of the said report, an
FIR
u/s
302
IPC
was
registered,
investigation ensued, and charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused, who
were tried u/s 302/34 IPC and ultimately
acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge,
Rampur, vide judgment dated 08.10.1987,
giving rise to instant government appeal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C.
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: The case was registered
on the
information given by (PW-2), who is the son of
deceased - After going through the evidence, it
was found that PW-2 in his examination-in-chief
has supported the prosecution story as alleged
in the written report but on perusal of his crossexamination, further PW-2 was not present on
19.09.1984 at the place of occurrence at about
4:30 PM - During his cross - examination by the
defence, it amply clear that when PW-2 heard
the news of murder of his father, thereafter, he
reached the place of occurrence - The evidence
as given by PW-2 in his cross-examination
clearly established that PW-2 has not really seen
the alleged incident with his own eyes -
Prosecution tried to project the PW-2 as an eyewitness of the alleged incident - Accused cannot
be convicted solely on the basis of enmity - To
establish guilt, the prosecution must present
foolproof evidence, either circumstantial or
direct, or establish a last seen together scenario,
that clearly connects the accused to the crime -
Prosecution lacks direct evidence and witnesses
- The key witnesses, (PW-2), (PW-3), and (PW5) are not the eye-witnesses of the incident,
which undermines the credibility of their
testimony - As a result, their evidence
cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable
doubt - It appears that the prosecution has
relied heavily on the fact that there were
ongoing civil and criminal litigation between
the deceased, and accused persons - Due to
this
reason,
prosecution
implicated the
accused persons - It also appears that due
to doubt and suspicion against the accused
persons, prosecution has wrongly named
accused persons for the commission of crime
with the purpose of retaliation/revenge but it
is also settled law that mere suspicion and
doubt, however, so strong cannot take place
of proof or evidence - For holding any
person guilty for commission of any crime
strong evidence beyond reasonable doubt
must be adduced by the prosecution - Thus,
government appeal dismissed. [Paras 15,
16, 22 to 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Sushil And Others v. State of U.P. 1995 SSC
(Cri.) 388; State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh
(2003) 3 SCC 153; Sujit Biswas v.

## Text

11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ram Raksh Pal & Ors.
691
Rs.10,26,740/- alongwith interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it's actual payment,
which is to be indemnified by the insurer
of the offending Vikram tempo UP70AT-0110.

19. The cross objection is allowed.
The award of the Tribunal is modified to
the above extent.

20. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants keeping in view their age and
dependency.

21. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company
to
the
tribunal
concerned,
forthwith.

22. Office is directed to return the
original
record
of
the
lower
court,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 691
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Government Appeal No. 71 of 1988

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Raksh Pal & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Viresh Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Sessions
Judge committed any legal infirmity, perversity,
or manifest error in acquitting the accused -
respondents of charge u/s 302 read with s. 34
of Indian Penal Code, and whether the
appreciation of evidence by Trial Court was so
unreasonable
or
contrary
to
the
settled
principles governing appeals against acquittal as
to warrant interference by the High Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302/34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - The
prosecution case originates from a written
report
dated
19.09.1984
lodged
by
Hemant Kumar, son of the deceased Ram
Kripal Gupta, alleging that due to longstanding
civil
and
criminal
disputes
relating to property and construction
matters between the deceased and the
accused persons, namely Ram Rakshpal
Gupta, Rama Kant and Diwan Chand
Thareja, relations between the parties had
become strained - It was alleged that on
the said date, while the deceased was
returning home on a bicycle along with his
sons and a companion after visiting the
Moradabad Development Authority, two
motorcycles intercepted them near F.T.S.
College Road, whereupon the accused
Rama Kant and Diwan Chand Thareja
allegedly fired at the deceased with
pistols, causing his instantaneous death,
after which all the accused fled from the
spot - On the basis of the said report, an
FIR
u/s
302
IPC
was
registered,
investigation ensued, and charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused, who
were tried u/s 302/34 IPC and ultimately
acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge,
Rampur, vide judgment dated 08.10.1987,
giving rise to instant government appeal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C.
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: The case was registered
on the
information given by (PW-2), who is the son of
deceased - After going through the evidence, it
was found that PW-2 in his examination-in-chief
has supported the prosecution story as alleged
in the written report but on perusal of his crossexamination, further PW-2 was not present on
19.09.1984 at the place of occurrence at about
4:30 PM - During his cross - examination by the
defence, it amply clear that when PW-2 heard
the news of murder of his father, thereafter, he
reached the place of occurrence - The evidence
as given by PW-2 in his cross-examination
clearly established that PW-2 has not really seen
the alleged incident with his own eyes -
Prosecution tried to project the PW-2 as an eyewitness of the alleged incident - Accused cannot
be convicted solely on the basis of enmity - To
establish guilt, the prosecution must present
foolproof evidence, either circumstantial or
direct, or establish a last seen together scenario,
that clearly connects the accused to the crime -
Prosecution lacks direct evidence and witnesses
- The key witnesses, (PW-2), (PW-3), and (PW5) are not the eye-witnesses of the incident,
which undermines the credibility of their
testimony - As a result, their evidence
cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable
doubt - It appears that the prosecution has
relied heavily on the fact that there were
ongoing civil and criminal litigation between
the deceased, and accused persons - Due to
this
reason,
prosecution
implicated the
accused persons - It also appears that due
to doubt and suspicion against the accused
persons, prosecution has wrongly named
accused persons for the commission of crime
with the purpose of retaliation/revenge but it
is also settled law that mere suspicion and
doubt, however, so strong cannot take place
of proof or evidence - For holding any
person guilty for commission of any crime
strong evidence beyond reasonable doubt
must be adduced by the prosecution - Thus,
government appeal dismissed. [Paras 15,
16, 22 to 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Sushil And Others v. State of U.P. 1995 SSC
(Cri.) 388; State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh
(2003) 3 SCC 153; Sujit Biswas v. State of
Assam, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817; State
of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra And Another,
decided on 12.02.2021 - referred to
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Government appeal; Against acquittal; s. 378
Cr.P.C.; ss. 302/34 IPC, FIR; Written report;
Charge-sheet; Investigation; Site plan; Oral
evidence;
Documentary
evidence;
Key
witnesses;
Eye-witness;
Cross-examination;
Contradictions;
Improvements;
Credibility;
Burden of proof; Retaliation/revenge; Beyond
reasonable doubt; Enmity; Suspicion; False
implication; Motive; Presence at the place of
occurrence; Benefit of doubt; Appreciation of
evidence; Perusal of record; Interference;
Dismissal of appeal.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:

Government
Appeal No. - 71 of 1988

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.1987
passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in
Session Trial No. 740 of 1985, in Case Crime No.
560 of 1984
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
A.G.A

Adv. for the Respondent:
Viresh Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.
&
Hon'ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

1. In light of the office report dated
31.10.2025, the appeal is declared to have
abated so far as it concerns with opposite
party No. 3, namely, Diwan Chand Thareja.
The appeal survives for adjudication only
in respect of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2,
namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta and Rama
Kant.

2. List has been revised. No one
appears for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ram Raksh Pal & Ors.
693

3. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

4. The present Government Appeal
under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the State against the judgment
and order dated 08.10.1987 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Rampur in Session Trial
No. 740 of 1985, arising out of Case Crime
No. 560 of 1984, under Section 302 IPC,
Police Station- Civil Lines, District-
Moradabad, whereby the accused, namely,
Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant and
Diwan Chand Thareja have been acquitted
of the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC.

5. As per prosecution case, on the
basis of a written report (Ex.Ka.2) dated
19.09.1984, lodged by the informant
Hemant Kumar (PW-2), son of the
deceased (Ram Kripal Gupta), an FIR dated
19.09.1984
(Ex.Ka.6)
was
registered
against the accused-respondents, namely,
Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant and
Diwan Chand Thareja under Section 302 of
IPC. In the report, it is alleged that there
was a long-standing property dispute
between Ram Rakshpal and Advocate,
Ram Kripal Gupta (the deceased). During
the dispute, Ram Rakshpal sold his house
to Diwan Chand Thareja and his wife, who
were then also added to the court case.
Deceased-Ram Kripal Gupta also objected
to a building map submitted by Diwan
Chand to the Moradabad Development
Authority (MDA) and as Diwan Chand had
illegally constructed some shops, the MDA
ordered for their demolition. His appeal
was rejected, and a revision was still
pending before the State Government. Due
to these issues, relations between both the
parties became spoiled, and the accused
allegedly wanted to harm the deceased. The
deceased's two sons, Hemant Kumar and
Pushpendra
Kumar
Gupta,
used
to
accompany and watch over him. On 19
September 1984, after visiting the MDA
office, the deceased was returning home on
a bicycle with his sons and a companion
named Devendra. Near F.T.S. College
Road, two motorcycles suddenly stopped in
front of them. One motorcycle carried
accused Ramakant and Ram Rakshpal; the
other was driven by an unknown man with
Diwan Chand Thareja sitting behind.
Thereafter, the deceased tried to turn his
bicycle onto the unreconstructed road, and
Hemant jumped off and tried to run.
Pushpendra Kumar Gupta also stopped his
cycle. At that moment, Ramakant and
Diwan Chand came forward and fired at the
deceased with pistols. Ram Kripal Gupta
fell to the ground and died on the spot. All
the accused then fled away.

6.
Investigating
Officer,
Anand
Swaroop Sharma (PW-7) investigated the
matter. He prepared the site plan of the
alleged
incident
and
recorded
the
statements
of
the
witnesses.
After
completing all formalities relating to the
investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused persons, namely, Ram
Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant, and Diwan
Chand Thareja, under Section 302 of the
IPC.

7. The learned Trial Court framed
charges against the accused persons,
namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant,
and Diwan Chand Thareja, under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty to the
charges and claimed trial.

8. In the present case, prosecution
produced Dr. U.C. Srivastava (PW-1),
Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar
(PW-3), R.N. Dubey (PW-4), Pushpendra
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Shishu Kumar Singh
(PW-6) and Anand Swaroop Sharma (PW7)
as
prosecution
witnesses.
After
recording oral evidence and after filing of
documentary evidence by the prosecution,
statements
of
accused
persons
were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

9. The accused persons denied the
questions put up before them in their
statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and stated that they were falsely
implicated in the present case. The accused
persons also stated that they were not
present at the day, time and place of
occurrence.

10. In the present case, defence
produced Chaman Lal Ganju (DW-1),
Satyavrat Trivedi (DW-2), Dayanand Arora
(DW-3),
Dungar
Singh
(DW-4)
and
Shivcharan
Lal
(DW-5)
as
defence
witnesses.
Defence
also
produced
documentary evidence in the record.

11. After hearing the arguments
advanced by the prosecution, defence and
also perusing the evidence produced by the
prosecution and defence, learned trial Court
found that evidence of the prosecution
witnesses does not inspire any confidence.
Trial Court found that evidence of
prosecution witnesses was not trustworthy.
Trial
Court
also
found
that
major
contradictions and improvements were
present in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. Overall, learned Trial Court after
discussing and analyzing all the evidence
available on record, found that prosecution
was totally unsuccessful to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to this
reason, learned Trial Court acquitted all the
accused persons, namely, Ram Rakshpal
Gupta, Rama Kant, and Diwan Chand
Thareja. The said acquittal order dated
08.10.1987 has been challenged by the
State by filing the present government
appeal.

12. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
submitted that eye-witnesses, informantHemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar
(PW-3) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta
(PW-5) have seen the alleged incident by
their own eyes and they were physically
present at the place of incident but on the
ground of minor contradictions found in
their evidence, the Trial Court has totally
disbelieved
their
testimony.
Learned
A.G.A. also contented that evidence of eyewitnesses corroborates the evidence of each
other
and
ultimately,
oral
evidence
corroborates the medical evidence and the
prosecution by adducing documentary and
oral evidence has proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt but Trial Court on the
ground of minor contradictions of doubt,
discarded the reliable evidence of the
prosecution witnesses.

13. Learned A.G.A. has further
submitted that judgment and order dated
08.10.1987 passed by the Trial Court is
totally against the settled principle of law
and also the evidence in this regard. Hence,
the present government appeal is liable to
accepted, as such, the judgment and order
dated 08.10.1987 passed by the Trial Court
is liable to be set aside.

14. In the light of the arguments as
advanced by the learned A.G.A., we have
perused and gone through the material
evidence as available on record.

15. We find that this case was
registered on the information given by
Hemant Kumar (PW-2), who is the son of
deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta. After going
through this evidence, we find that PW-2 in
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ram Raksh Pal & Ors.
695
his examination-in-chief has supported the
prosecution story as alleged in the written
report (Ex.Ka.2) but on perusal of his
cross-examination, we find that PW-2 was
not present on 19.09.1984 at the place of
occurrence at about 4:30 PM. During his
cross-examination by the defence, it amply
transpires and becomes clear that when
PW-2 heard the news of murder of his
father, thereafter, he reached the place of
occurrence.

16. The evidence as given by PW-2 in
his cross-examination clearly establishes
the fact that PW-2 has not really seen the
alleged incident with his own eyes. From
perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2,
we find that PW-2 is not the eye-witness of
the
alleged
incident.
Statement
and
evidence as given by PW-2 in his crossexamination make this fact amply clear that
PW-2 was not an eye-witness of the alleged
incident. Prosecution tried to project the
PW-2 as an eye-witness of the alleged
incident.

17.
The
prosecution
produced
Devendra Kumar as PW-3, who is claimed
to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. This
witness is stated to be a friend of Hemant
Kumar (PW-2) and Pushpendra Kumar
Gupta (PW-5), the sons of the deceased.
Although
this
witness
supported
the
prosecution story in his examination-inchief, as narrated in the written report
(Ex.Ka.2), a closer examination of his
cross-examination reveals that he made
major
contradictory
statements.
Upon
perusal
of
his
cross-examination,
it
transpires that this witness is not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. The
prosecution has attempted to project him as
an eye-witness, but his evidence suggests
that he is a chance witness who was later
presented by the prosecution to fortify its
case.

18. The prosecution also produced
Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), the son
of the deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta as an
eye-witness. This witness supported the
prosecution story in his examination-inchief, as stated in the written report
(Ex.Ka.2). However, upon perusal of his
cross-examination, it is clear that this
witness is not an eye-witness of the alleged
incident. Despite attempting to support the
prosecution case, the evidence of this
witness fails to establish that he was
actually present at the scene of the crime. It
is apparent that this witness was not present
at the time and place of occurrence of the
alleged incident and, therefore, he cannot
be considered an eye-witness to the
incident.

19. It is evident from the written report
(Ex.Ka.2), the evidence of informant,
Hemant
Kumar
(PW-2),
prosecution
witness Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5),
as well as the documentary evidence, that
there were ongoing civil and criminal
litigation between the deceased Ram Kripal
Gupta and the accused persons. It is also
clear that the deceased had multiple
litigation with other individuals, and there
were several enemies and adversaries. The
informant, Hemant Kumar (PW-2), has
filed a written report (Ex.Ka.2) against the
accused persons naming them culprits.
Apart from the named accused persons,
there were many other enemies of the
deceased Ram Kripal Gupta, however, the
informant Hemant Kumar (PW-2), who is
not an eye-witness to the alleged incident,
has named the accused persons as culprits,
likely due to the existing enmity and
pending litigation.
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It is settled principle of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena
of decisions that only on the ground of
enmity no person can be held guilty for the
commission of crime. For holding guilty
any person for commission of any crime,
the prosecution is duty-bound to adduce
evidence and prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt, which they have failed to
do in this case.

21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sushil And Others v. State of U.P. 1995
SSC (Cri.) 388 and in the case of State of
Punjab v. Sucha Singh (2003) 3 SCC 153,
has held that:

Enmity is a double edged weapon
which cut both ways. It may constitute
motive for the commission of the crime and
at the same time it may also provide a
motive for false implication."

22. Therefore, we find that the accused
cannot be convicted solely on the basis of
enmity. To establish guilt, the prosecution
must present foolproof evidence, either
circumstantial or direct, or establish a last
seen
together
scenario,
that
clearly
connects the accused to the crime.

23. In the present case, the prosecution
lacks direct evidence and witnesses. The
key witnesses, Hemant Kumar (PW-2),
Devendra Kumar (PW-3), and Pushpendra
Kumar Gupta (PW-5), are not the eyewitnesses
of
the
incident,
which
undermines
the
credibility
of
their
testimony. As a result, their evidence
cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable
doubt.

24. In the case in hand, it appears that
the prosecution has relied heavily on the fact
that there were ongoing civil and criminal
litigation between the deceased, Ram Kripal
Gupta and accused persons. Due to this
reason, prosecution implicated the accused
persons. It also appears that due to doubt and
suspicion against the accused persons,
prosecution has wrongly named accused
persons for the commission of crime with the
purpose of retaliation/revenge but it is also
settled law that mere suspicion and doubt,
however, so strong cannot take place of proof
or evidence. For holding any person guilty
for commission of any crime strong evidence
beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced by
the prosecution.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1156
of 2021 in the case of State of Odisha v.
Banabihari
Mohapatra
And
Another;
decided on 12.02.2021 has held that: " It is
well settled by a plethora of judicial
pronouncement of this Court that suspicion,
however strong cannot take place of proof.
An accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

26. This proposition has been reiterated
in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam; reported in
AIR 2013 SC 3817. Therefore, it appears that
prosecution due to suspicion and doubt
against
accused
persons
wrongly
and
purposely named them in the murder of the
deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta but law is
settled that only on the ground of suspicion
and doubt no person can be held guilty for the
commission of any crime. It is also settled
principle that heinous the crime, stronger the
proof of evidence and without adducing
evidence beyond reasonable doubt no person
can be held guilty for commission of heinous
crime like murder etc.

27. We also gone through the
judgment and reasoning given by the
learned Trial Court and we find that learned
11 All. M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of State Tax U.P., Commissioner
 Office Lko & Ors.
697
Trial Court has fully discussed and
analysed both prosecution and defence
witnesses in minute details. Trial Court
has discussed both oral and documentary
evidence as adduced by prosecution and
defence. By mentioning and discussing
the prosecution and defence witnesses
including oral and documentary evidence,
Trial Court also found that prosecution
witnesses i.e. Hemant Kumar (PW-2),
Devendra Kumar (PW-3) and Pushpendra
Kumar Gupta (PW-5) were not eyewitnesses of the alleged incident. Trial
Court in a fully stretched, lengthy and
well discussed judgment found that
Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar
(PW-3) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta
(PW-5) were not eye-witnesses of the
alleged
incident
as
stated
by
the
prosecution. We find that judgment and
order of acquittal dated 08.10.1987
passed by the learned Trial Court is just
and proper. No interference is warranted
by this Court.

28. In the light of the above
discussions, we do not find any force in the
arguments advanced by learned A.G.A. for
the State, as such, the present government
appeal filed by the State is liable to be
dismissed.

29.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.

30. The judgment of this Court shall
be sent to the Trial Court for necessary
compliance. The Trial Court records be
transmitted back to the Trial Court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.11.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ Tax No. 533 of 2025

M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Commissioner
of
State
Tax
U.P.,
Commissioners Office Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pradeep Agrawal, Amar Mani Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to constructive res-judicata.

Headnotes
U.P. Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017-
Section 74-, 107-Henderson Principlealleged-impugned orders passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing- appeal
filed-dismissed on the ground of limitation-
as
well
as
non-compliance
of
Section
107(1)(b) the GST Act.- appeal filed did not
accompany
the
pre-deposit-thereafter
petitioner filed a Writ-Tax- never made any
prayer that the petitioner may be exempted
from making the pre-deposit- cannot be
permitted to raise the said issue later by a
subsequent petition- deliberate attempt has
been made by filing a successive writ
petition- only to evade the pre-deposit of
10% - constructive res-judicata is clearly
attracted. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58
2. Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v.
Electricity Department Represented by Its
Superintending Engineer, Port Blair and others,
(2016) 16 SCC 152
3. Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others,
(1987) 1 SCC 5
4. Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727