# / v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 748
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2582 of 1998
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-state-of-u-p-40586
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure- S-482Quashing of Criminal Proceeding offence
under N.D.P.S. Act admittedly 'Bhang'-
recovered
from
the
possession
of
applicant such narcotics substance not
covered under N.D.P.S. No chance of
conviction
if proceeding
allowed to
continue nothing but short of abase of
the process of the court charge sheet
quashed.

Para 5 and 6

In the instant case, the allegations in the
First Information Report is that the
applicants
were
in
possession
of
narcotics substance and the substance
alleged by the prosecution is "Bhang",
which is admittedly not covered under
the N,D.P.S. Act. In the circumstances,
there is no chance of conviction of the
applicants by the Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Act Etawah for the offence alleged
against them and in case proceedings
are allowed to continue, it is nothing
short of abuse of the process of the
court.

Thus it is absolutely clear that the
second category is identical to the one
detailed in R.P. Kapoor's case. The case
at hand is admittedly covered under the
categories carved out by the Apex Court
detailed above. In the Circumstances, it
is apparent that the proceedings against
the applicants, if allowed to continue will
only amount to harassment to the
applicants and an abuse of the process of
the court. In the circumstances, I come
to the conclusion that there is no reason
for continuation of the proceedings
against the applicants. Thus in view of
what has been discussed above and with
a view to meet the ends of justice the
charge sheet is quashed and the order
dated 14.5.1998 issuing non-bailable
warrants against the applicants is set
aside. This application is accordingly,
allowed.
2 All] Amar Nath Gupta and another V. State of U.P.
749
Case law discussed:
1995 Alld- Criminal Ruling P-73
AIR 1960 SC-866
1982 (3) SCR-121
1991 (28) ACE-III (S.C.)

## Text

748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
judgment. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. However, it shall be open to
the petitioner to challenge the order of
remand in an appeal from the final order
as an when cause for same arises.

7. It has been pointed out on behalf
of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer
Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad has
fixed today as the date for final hearing
after
remand.
In
the
facts
and
circumstances of the Case it is provided
that the petitioner may make a request to
the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Allahabad for adjournment of
the case to some other date so as to enable
them to produce a copy of the order
passed today before the Presiding Officer,
D.R.T., Allahabad. On such request being
made the Court has not room to doubt that
the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Allahabad shall consider the
request of the petitioner sympathetically.
However, such adjournment may be
granted for a week only. Petition
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2582 of
1998

Amar Nath Gupta and another

 ...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rajeev Gupta
Sri Dilip Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure- S-482Quashing of Criminal Proceeding offence
under N.D.P.S. Act admittedly 'Bhang'-
recovered
from
the
possession
of
applicant such narcotics substance not
covered under N.D.P.S. No chance of
conviction
if proceeding
allowed to
continue nothing but short of abase of
the process of the court charge sheet
quashed.

Para 5 and 6

In the instant case, the allegations in the
First Information Report is that the
applicants
were
in
possession
of
narcotics substance and the substance
alleged by the prosecution is "Bhang",
which is admittedly not covered under
the N,D.P.S. Act. In the circumstances,
there is no chance of conviction of the
applicants by the Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Act Etawah for the offence alleged
against them and in case proceedings
are allowed to continue, it is nothing
short of abuse of the process of the
court.

Thus it is absolutely clear that the
second category is identical to the one
detailed in R.P. Kapoor's case. The case
at hand is admittedly covered under the
categories carved out by the Apex Court
detailed above. In the Circumstances, it
is apparent that the proceedings against
the applicants, if allowed to continue will
only amount to harassment to the
applicants and an abuse of the process of
the court. In the circumstances, I come
to the conclusion that there is no reason
for continuation of the proceedings
against the applicants. Thus in view of
what has been discussed above and with
a view to meet the ends of justice the
charge sheet is quashed and the order
dated 14.5.1998 issuing non-bailable
warrants against the applicants is set
aside. This application is accordingly,
allowed.
2 All] Amar Nath Gupta and another V. State of U.P.
749
Case law discussed:
1995 Alld- Criminal Ruling P-73
AIR 1960 SC-866
1982 (3) SCR-121
1991 (28) ACE-III (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing
the entire proceeding in special criminal
case no.32 of 1998, State Vs. Raj Bir and
Amar Nath Gupta pending in the court of
Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Etawah. The
applicants are, accused in the case
registered at case crime no.176 of 1992
under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. The First
Information Report was registered on
20.6.1992 at 22:40 hours and the
"occurrence is alleged to have taken place
on 20.6.1992 at 21:30 hours. The
recovery shown from possession of the
applicants
is
of
"Bhang".
After
completion of the investigation, police
submitted final report n6: 7 of 1993 but
the learned Magistrate refused to accept
the final report and took cognizance, non
bailable warrants were issued against the
applicants vide order dated 14.5,1998,
which is also under challenge. The
applicants have submitted that after the
First Information Report was lodged, the
Sub
Inspector
proceeded
with
the
investigation after converting the case
under
Section
60
Excise
Act.
Subsequently, on the direction of the
Circle Officer, offence was investigated
under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act as
well as under Section 60 Excise Act. The
applicants have annexed Parcha of the
case diary along with final report nO.7 of
1993 dated 18.4.1993 as annexure no.4
and 4-A to the affidavit. The order dated
14.5.1998 has been quoted in paragraph
no.9 of the affidavit whereby non-bailable
warrants were issued at the first instance.

3. Counsel for the applicants has
argued that admitted position is only
"Bhang" was recovered from possession
of the applicants, which is not covered
under
the
N.D.P.S.
Act.
In
the
circumstances, entire proceeding stands
vitiated in law and is liable to be quashed.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the
State. It is admitted in paragraph no.8 of
the counter affidavit that though the First
Information Report was registered under
Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act but the court
had remanded the accused to jail custody
under Section 60 Excise Act. However, it
is admitted that "Bhang" which was·
recovered
from
possession
of
the
applicants is not covered under the
N.D.P.S. Act and the applicants are
salesmen of the shop belonging to one
Babu Ram and Rashmi Kumar, who have
a valid licence for sale of "Bhang".
Counsel for the applicants has cited a
decision of this Court Samid Vs. State of
V.P. 1995. Allahabad Criminal Rulings
page 73, this decision is in a criminal
appeal decided by this Court, where' it
was held that "Bhang" is not covered
under the Narcotics and Psychotropic
drugs. In the circll1.nstances, possession
of 'Bhang" does not constitute an offence
within the meaning of provisions of
Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. In the said case, it
was held that possession of "Bhang" IS
not an offence in view of the admitted
position, sentence of the accused under
Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act was set aside.
After going through the entire record and
hearing the respective counsels, it is
evident that assuming each and every
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
words
leveled
by
the
prosecution,
accepted to be correct, even then there is
not even a remote chance of conviction of
the applicants under the N.D.P.A. Act.
Admitted position is that the applicants
were salesmen in the shop owned by two
persons, who were running the "Bhang"
shop on the basis of a valid licence.

4. The Apex Court has held in a
catena of decisions that where the charge
leveled against the applicants if accepted
as it is, chances of conviction are
ab~01utely bleak then the Court in
exercise of inherent powers can quash the
proceedings. In the case of R. P. Kapoor
Vs. State of Puniab, A.I.R. 1960, S.C.,
866, three categories were carved out.
Second category is

"(II) Where the allegations In the
First Information Report or the complaint
even If they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not
constitute the offence alleged; in such
cases
no
question
of
appreciating
evidence 'arises; it is a matter merely of
looking at the complaint or the First
Information Report to decide whether the
offence alleged is discloses or not?"

5. In the instant case, the allegations
in the First Information Report is that the
applicants were in possession of narcotics
substance and the substance alleged by
the prosecution is "Bhang", which is
admittedly
not
covered
under
the
N,D.P.S. Act. In the circumstances, there
is no chance of conviction of the
applicants by the Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Act Etawah for the offence alleged
against them and in case proceedings are
allowed to continue, it is nothing short of
abuse of the process of the court. Similar
view has been envisaged in a number of
other cases State of West Bengal and
others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and
others 1982 (3) SCR page 12 I, State of
Haryana and others Vs. Chaudhary
Bhaian Lal 1991 (28) ACC 111 (S.C.).
The Apex Court has considered all the
cases decided earlier and carved out seven
categories in the case of Chaudhary
Bhajan Lal (Supra). The very first
category is

"Where the allegations made In the
First information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused".

6. Thus it is absolutely clear that the
second category is identical to the one
detailed in R.P. Kapoor's case. The case at
hand is admittedly covered under the
categories carved out by the Apex Court
detailed above. In the Circumstances, it is
apparent that the proceedings against the
applicants, if allowed to continue will
only amount to harassment to the
applicants and an abuse of the process of
the court. In the circumstances, I come to
the conclusion that there is no reason for
continuation of the proceedings against
the applicants. Thus in view of what has
been discussed above and with a view to
meet the ends of justice the charge sheet
is quashed and the order dated 14.5.1998
issuing non-bailable warrants against the
applicants is set aside. This application is
accordingly, allowed.

Application
Allowed.
---------
2 All] Mukesh Singh Chauhan and others V. State of U.P. and others
751
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6663 of 2005

Mukesh Singh Chauhan and others

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Y.K. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ravi Ranjan
Sri P.K. Prajapati
Sri Rajesh Kumar
Sri S.N. Singh
S.C.

Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921Chapter II Regulation 20, Regulation
17(a) to (g) read with section 16 FF-
(4)(5)-
Appointment
of
L.T.
grade
teacher in minority institution after
retirement of Regular L.T. grade teachers
on 30.6.99 vacancy aroser on 2.9.99
management
sought
permission
and
granted by DIOS on 25.9.99 in 29.9.99
vacancy advertised in Amar Ujala as well
as
in
statement
on
6.10.2000
appointment and the intimation send
DIOS for financial approval DIOS raised
objection regarding post ought to have
advertised on subject wise and not on
category wise proceeding of selection
not placed before DIOS the appointment
was prior to the approval held the
regulation 17 of chapter II are simply
guidelines-an irregularity by selection
committee such appointment can not be
invalid provided the candidate otherwise
eligible
as
per
section
16-FF(u)
consideration of DIOS during approval
confined with minimum qualification and
not otherwise order refusing approval
quashed.
Case law discussed:
W.P. No. 35525 of 04
1994 AWC- 1108

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala. J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena,
the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Ravi
Ranjan,
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Rajesh
Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Sri
P.K.Prajapati,
the
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent no.4.

2. Three teachers in L.T. Grade
retired
on
reaching
the
age
of
superannuation on 30.6.99 in a minority
institution known as Christian Inter
College, Mainpuri. The vacancy arose on
1.7.1999.The Committee of Management
vide
letter
dated
2.9.1999
sought
permission from the District Inspector of
Schools to advertise three posts in general
subject. The District Inspector of Schools
vide an order dated 25.9.19099 granted
permission for advertising the posts and
for the initiation of the selection process
for the appointment of Assistant Teachers
in L.T. Grade.

3. It transpires that an advertisement
were issued in the Hindi Newspaper
'Amar Ujala' dated· 29.9.1999 and in the
English
newspaper
'Statesman'
on
5.10.1999.
Further,
a
Selection
Committee was duly constituted and the
said committee recommended the names
of the petitioners for appointment as
Assistant Teachers. The committee of
management
issued
the
appointment
letters dated 6.10.2000 in favour of the
petitioners and simultaneously sent the
papers: to the District Inspector of
Schools for financial approval.