# State of U.P v. Shree Krishna Chandra

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1058
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-19
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 334 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-shree-krishna-chandra-44555
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :-
Section 378(3) - application-grant of leave
to appeal- if the value of property held is
not 10% in excess than the known source
of income then that will not be deemed to
be
inappropriate
or
disproportionate
property.-After analyzing this aspect, the
judgment of acquittal has been passed,
which is based on the basis of evidence on
record. (Para 3 & 4)

Government Appeal rejected (E-6)

Case Law discussed:

## Text

1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been passed in favour of respondent no. 2
is a cryptic one. The impugned order
merely states that the operation of the
order under challenge is being stayed in
the interest of justice. There is absolutely
no reason or ground mentioned in support
of this order. It is no more res integra that
every judicial order must contain reasons.
In Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Limited and
others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 the Apex
Court in paragraph 27 has opined as
under:

"27. It is a settled legal
proposition that not only administrative
but also judicial orders must be supported
by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the
court to record reasons while disposing of
the case. The hallmark of order and
exercise of judicial power by a judicial
forum is for the forum to disclose its
reasons by itself and giving of reasons has
always been insisted upon as one of the
fundamentals of sound administration of
the justice delivery system, to make it
known that there had been proper and due
application of mind to the issue before the
court and also as an essential requisite of
the principles of natural justice."

15. For the aforesaid reasons,
impugned order dated 10.12018 cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside.

16. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Faizabad is directed to
pass a fresh order in accordance with law
in the light of the observations made
above expeditiously and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.

17. Till the time a fresh order is
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the parties shall maintain
status quo and shall not alienate the
property in dispute.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 1058

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 334 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Shree Krishna Chandra
 ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
------

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :-
Section 378(3) - application-grant of leave
to appeal- if the value of property held is
not 10% in excess than the known source
of income then that will not be deemed to
be
inappropriate
or
disproportionate
property.-After analyzing this aspect, the
judgment of acquittal has been passed,
which is based on the basis of evidence on
record. (Para 3 & 4)

Government Appeal rejected (E-6)

Case Law discussed:

1. Krishnand Rao Vs St. of M. P. AIR 1977 SC 796

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)
2 All. State of U.P. Vs Shree Krishna Chandra
1059

1. This appeal u/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. has
been proposed by State of U.P. with a
prayer for grant of leave to appeal against
judgment of acquittal passed by Court of
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.
2, Varanasi, in S.S.T. No. 7 of 2001, State
Vs. Sri Krishna Chandra, under section
13(2) read with 13(1) (E) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 by U.P. Vigilance
Organization, District Allahabad.

2. Learned AGA argued that the
learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate
facts and law placed before it. On the
application of Pradeep Srivastava, Vice
Chairman, U.P. Youth Congress (I) to
Governor of U.P. an order for enquiry
about disproportionate wealth of Sri
Krishna
Chandra,
Dy.
Excise
Commissioner, Kanpur, was passed and
after enquiry accusation was held to be
substantiated, which resulted registration
of above case under above sections and
filing of charge sheet. Cognizance over it
was taken and trial was held, wherein
evidence was produced on record, but the
trial court failed to appreciate facts and
law placed before it, thereby passed
impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence
this application with above prayer.

3. Perusal of judgment reveals that
statement
of
Krishna
Chandra
was
recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which specific
contention was that owing to enmity, this
false complaint was filed and it was
enquired. But the enquiry was not a
correct one. The earning by salary was not
properly calculated. Many heads of
earning by him was not taken into
consideration. Whereas earning of family
having independent business was not
assessed properly. Earnings of Smt.
Manju Chandra, as were given in exhibit
Kha 1 to Kha 10, were not properly
appreciated. Accused was of no concern
with Subhash Chandra. His wife Manju
Chandra had purchased properties, detailed
in para 92 of the judgment, by her own
independent earnings, which included
purchase of Rifle etc. These were of her
own separate business and earnings. Those
documents were submitted before the
enquiry officer, but the same were not
taken into consideration. Manju Chandra
Gas
Service,
Allahabad,
was
under
proprietorship of Manju Chandra. This
earning is in the names of Prateek Chandra
and Nisha Chandra. Accounts of that Gas
Agency was not taken into consideration,
though details of same were submitted
before the Government. Accused had
examined Manju Chandra as DW1 and
himself as DW2. Documentary evidence
including Income Tax Return of Smt.
Manju Chandra right from 1982 to 1996 as
well as of Manju Chandra Gas Service
Exhibits Kha 1 to Kha 10 were submitted.
Trial court has appreciated those facts.
Upon
enquiry
got
conducted
under
direction of State of U.P. and report filed
thereby, which was of State itself and was
proved before the Court, were of those fact
that earning of Manju Chandra was Rs.
12,59,008/-
and
expenses
were
Rs.10,83,936/- i.e. property held within the
earning. Moreso, as per law laid down by
Apex Court in Krishnand Rao Vs. State of
M. P., AIR 1977 SC 796, if the value of
property held is not 10% in excess than the
known source of income then that will not
be
deemed
to
be
inappropriate
or
disproportionate property. After analyzing
this aspect, the judgment of acquittal has
been passed, which is based on the basis of
evidence on record.

4. Under all above facts there remain
no ground for grant of leave to appeal.
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. According the application is
rejected.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1060

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 338 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nishant Gupta & Ors.
 ...Accused- Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
------

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
376(2)(E), 376(D), 166B, 201, 202, 506(2)
& Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 378(3) - application - grant of
leave to appeal-rejection - delay in F.I.R -
accusation of commission of rape was
against
two
employees
of
hospital
concerned-No allegation against remaining
accused persons - it was not said in the
report
that
it
was
threat
of
dire
consequences and threat of not treating or
providing medical help-the statement of
victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which specific
accusation of rape is against the two
attendants not against doctors who were
giving threat-Victim has said that she
informed her parent on telephone and her
father came there and she was treated by
Doctors of the same hospital were very
affectionate to the victim- charges levelled
against them were not proved by the
prosecution- Hence they were acquitted -
Overall
appreciation
of
facts
and
circumstances and reasoning given by the
trial court, there appears no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned judgment.

B. Informant's daughter was serving as
attendant of Dr. Shalini Maheshwari at
Ganga
Sheel
Hospital,
D.D.
Puram,
Bareily. she was on her duty when she
was summoned by Shivraj attendant of
Dr. Nishant Gupta at first floor and when
she reached there, she was bolted inside
by Nar Singh and Shivraj, they committed
rape. She narrated the occurrence to Dr.
Shalini Maheshwari through telephone.
There was persistent threat by Dr. Shalini
Maheshwari
and Dr. Nishant Gupta.
Meaning
thereby
accusation
of
commission of rape was against two
employees of hospital concerned. No
allegation
against
remaining
accused
persons was there till registration of
F.I.R. except extension of persistent
threat and it was not said in the report
that it was threat of dire consequences
and threat of not treating or providing
medical help. Rather the same is the
statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in
which specific accusation of rape is
against Shivraj and attempt to commit
rape is against Narsingh. But there is
variance.
Victim
has
said
that
she
informed her parent on telephone and her
father came there and she was treated by
Dr.
Nishant.
Dr.
Shalini
was
very
affectionate to the victim. Hence after
appreciating
all
facts,
the
essential
ingredients
for
the
charges
levelled
against them were not proved. (Para 2 & 3)

Government Appeal rejected (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This appeal has been proposed by
State of U.P. under section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C. against judgment of acquittal
passed by court of Additional Sessions
Judge, fifth, Bareilly, on 9.4.2019 in S.T.
No. 1051 of 2013, State Vs. Shivraj and
others, u/s 376(2)(E), 376(D), 166B, 201,
202, 506(2) I.P.C., P.S. Prem Nagar,