# Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-07
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (Leave To Appeal) No. 86 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48444
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section - 313, 372, 378 (3) - Indian
Penal Code, Section - 302, 379, 511 -
Arms Act,1959 - Section - 25 - Leave to
Appeal - against order of acquittal by the trial
court merely on the ground that - all the eye
witnesses
are
related
witnesses
&
the
recovered weapon could not be connected
with crime - in the light of law down by the
Hon'ble Apex court - judgment of trial court
needs
no
interference
-
hence
Appeal
dismissed. (Para - 16, 18, 21)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)
5 All. Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be more vulnerable to abuse in adult life.
Healing is slow and systematic. Rape is not
only a crime against the victim, it is crime
against the society as well and is also
violative of victims most cherished of
fundamental rights, mainly right to life
contained in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. In such a situation, if the right
decision is not taken from the Court at the
right
time,
then
the
trust
of
a
victim/common man will not be left in the
judicial system.

7- I also find that if rape is committed
by a man on a little girl under twelve years
of age, according the provisions of Section
376A-B of Indian Penal Code, he shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than twenty
years,
but
which
may
extend
to
imprisonment for life, which means that the
accused shall be in prison for the remainder
of his natural life, and with fine or with
death.

8- Having examined the matter in its
entirety I do not find any material or cogent
reason at this stage to presume the false
implication of the applicant. I am also of
the considered view that the depth of
penetration is immaterial in an offence
punishable under Section 376 I.P.C.

9- Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, nature of
offence, the gravity involved therein and
the manner in which the crime has been
committed, no case for bail is made out.

10- The application for bail is hereby
rejected.

11- However, it is clarified that the
observation, if any, made herein above shall
be strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed
to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.

12- Office is directed to send the copy
of this order to the complainant as well as
concerned Court below within two weeks.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1150
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (Leave To Appeal) No. 86
of 2018
(U/s 372 Cr.P.C.)
in
Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. -- of
2017
(U/s 372 Cr.P.C.)

Virendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section - 313, 372, 378 (3) - Indian
Penal Code, Section - 302, 379, 511 -
Arms Act,1959 - Section - 25 - Leave to
Appeal - against order of acquittal by the trial
court merely on the ground that - all the eye
witnesses
are
related
witnesses
&
the
recovered weapon could not be connected
with crime - in the light of law down by the
Hon'ble Apex court - judgment of trial court
needs
no
interference
-
hence
Appeal
dismissed. (Para - 16, 18, 21)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)
5 All. Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
List of Cases cited:-

1. Babu Vs St. of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 &
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179,

2. Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 9
SCC 225 & 1996 SCC (Cri) 972,

3. Anwar Ali & anr. Vs St. of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC
166,

4. Nagabhushan Vs St. of Karn., (2021) 5 SCC
222,

5. Achhar Singh Vs St. of H. P., (2021) 5 SCC
543,

6. Rajput Ruda Maha & ors. Vs St. of Guj., 1980
2 SCR 353.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav,
learned counsel for the appellant-applicant
and Ms. Nandprabha Shukla, learned
A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. As already held by this Court in
number of cases that leave application filed
under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is not
required in the appeal filed by the victim
under Section 372 Cr.P.C. like the present
appeal. A reference may be made to the
order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Criminal
Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. No. 123 of 2021
(Rita Devi vs. State of U.P. and another).
As such, the application for leave to appeal
stands rejected as not maintainable and / or
not required.

3. This appeal has been filed
against the order dated 12.7.2017 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5,
Mathura acquitting the respondent nos. 2, 3
and 4 under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section
25 of Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 764
of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 85
of 2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. and
Session Trial No. 765 of 2013 arising out
of Case Crime No. 97 of 2012, under
Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Maant,
District Mathura.

4.

According
to
the
first
information report on 4.6.2012 at about
09:00 P.M. certain persons on highway
were committing theft of electricity cable
from the electricity poll. On coming to
know father of the informant (Virendra
Singh) deceased Dorilal s/o Chhitariya
reached on the spot along with certain other
persons.
The
persons,
who
were
committing theft, fired hitting the chest of
Dorilal (father of the informant), who died
on the spot. First information report was
registered at 21:50 against unknown
persons as Case Crime No. 85 of 2012,
under Sections 302, 379, 511 I.P.C., P.S.
Maant, District Mathura.

5. In support of prosecution case
P.W.-1 Virendra, P.W.-2 Parsadi, P.W.-3
Shivcharan, P.W.-4 Dalchand, P.W.-5
Phoolwati, P.W.-6 S.O Sri Arvind Kumar,
P.W.-7 Dr. D.S. Naviyal, P.W.-8 Constable
Clerk Sher Singh, P.W.-9 H.C.P. Manni
Singh, P.W.10- S.I. Sri Rajendra Singh,
P.W.-11 S.I. Sri Radhakrishna and P.W.-12
Sri Sri Omprakash were produced. Two
accused persons Geetaram s/o Jagna and
Talewar s/o Ramjilal were arrested by the
police on pointing out of the informant in
the night of 12/13.7.2012 at about 01:00
A.M and a countrymade pistol of 315 bore
with one live and one empty cartridge were
recovered
from
the
possession
of
Geetaram. No other recovery was made by
other co-accused Talewar. The Case Crime
No. 97 of 2012, under Section 25 of Arms
Act, P.S. Maant, District Mathura was
registered
against
Geetaram.
In
the
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the
incident and submitted that they have not
committed the offence and their claim was
that some other unidentified persons, who
were committing theft of electricity cable,
had committed the crime.

6. The accused persons were
acquitted by the trial court on the ground
that all the witnesses are related witnesses
and the recovered weapon could not be
connected with the crime. It was further
found that the statement made by the
prosecution witnesses were contradictory in
nature and the incident was described in
different ways and there was no eye
witness of the spot. It was found by the trial
court that all the alleged eye witnesses have
not proved the incident. It was also found
that the eye witnesses were present when
report was given by the informant but
names of such persons were not disclosed
in the first information report and it was
alleged that some unidentified persons have
committed the crime. It was further found
that the incident had taken place in the
night of 4.6.2012 at about 09:00 P.M.,
whereas the accused persons Geetaram and
Talewar were arrested after about 5-6
weeks on 12/13.7.2012 and apart from
countrymade pistol of 315 bore one live
cartridge and one empty cartridge were also
recovered from them. Since, it was not
understandable that how the used cartridge
is connected with the incident herein,
therefore, the F.S.L. report was found not
worth-believe and no assistance could have
taken
therefrom
by
the
prosecution.
Regarding arrest of the persons it was
found that site plan is incorrect and was not
supported by the formal witnesses. On the
site plan one hut, wherefrom arrest of the
accused and recovery of weapon was made,
was shown, whereas there was no such hut
on the spot. It was also found that the site
plan (Ex. 6) and (Ex. 14) are of the same
spot but there was material difference in the
same. It was also found that countrymade
pistol recovered from Geetaram was rusted,
therefore, could not have been used in the
incident. Insofar as arrest of the accused
persons are concerned, the G.D. report
dated 12.7.2012 indicates the police party
was gone out for patrolling was not proved
and there was no independent witness of
the arrest of the accused persons and
recovery. It was also found that it is proved
from the witnesses that one of the accused
Talewar was a Panchayatnama witness.
The court also observed that as per the
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. Geetaram was aged about 75 years
and therefore, at the time of incident he
must be aged about 70 years and under all
circumstances trial court found that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond doubt.

7. Submission of learned counsel
for the appellant is that the accused persons
were arrested and weapon used in the
incident was recovered from the possession
of the accused Geetaram and even the
F.S.L. report Ex. 22 has proved that one
empty cartridge which was recovered from
the possession of Geetaram was fired from
the same countrymade pistol, which was
recovered from the possession of the
accused. Therefore, it is clear that the said
weapon was used in the incident. He
further submitted that all the statement of
the eye witnesses have been incorrectly
rejected on the ground that the prosecution
witnesses are related to the deceased and
the informant. He further submitted that the
presence of the eye witnesses on the spot is
natural in such circumstances and even
otherwise no other person, who is not
related, usually does not come forward to
5 All. Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
give evidence. He, therefore, submitted that
merely because they were relative of the
deceased, their eye witness account could
not have been rejected. He further pointed
out that once there is a direct evidence, the
motive is not relevant and, as such, the
judgment of the trial court acquitting the
accused persons is liable to be reversed and
the accused persons are liable to be
punished under Section 302 I.P.C. and
Geetaram is liable to be punished under
Section 25 of Arms Act as well.

8. We have considered the
submissions and perused the original
record.

9. Before proceeding further it
would be appropriate to take note of the
law laid down by Supreme Court on the
issue involved.

10. In the case of Babu vs. State
of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1179, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed that while dealing with a
judgment of acquittal, the appellate court
has to consider the entire evidence on
record, so as to arrive at a finding as to
whether the views of the trial Court were
perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider
whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial Court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or
had taken into consideration the evidence
brought on record contrary to law.
Paragraphs 12 to 19 of the aforesaid
judgment are quoted as under:-

 "12. This court time and again
has laid down the guidelines for the High
Court to interfere with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
The appellate court should not ordinarily
set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case
where two views are possible, though the
view of the appellate court may be more,
the probable one. While dealing with a
judgment of acquittal, the appellate court
has to consider the entire evidence on
record, so as to arrive at a finding as to
whether the views of the trial Court were
perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider
whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial Court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or
had taken into consideration the evidence
brought on record contrary to law.
Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof
may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by
the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v.
State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 2165;
Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of Bihar
AIR 1991 SC 315; Shailendra Pratap &
Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 1104;
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10
SCC 699; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of
U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2500; State of U.P. v.
Ramveer Singh AIR 2007 SC 3075; S.
Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his
LRs. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu
& Anr. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206; Perla
Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P.
(2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias
Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2010) 2 SCC 445).

13. In Sheo Swarup and Ors.
King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy
Council observed as under:

"...the High Court should and will
always
give
proper
weight
and
consideration to such matters as (1) the
views of the trial Judge as to the credibility
of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the
fact that he has been acquitted at his trial,
(3) the right of the accused to the benefit of
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an
appellate court in disturbing a finding of
fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses...."

14. The aforesaid principle of law
has consistently been followed by this
Court. (See: Tulsiram Kanu v. The State
AIR 1954 SC 1; Balbir Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; M.G. Agarwal v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200;
Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar
AIR 1970 SC 66; Sambasivan and Ors.
State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412;
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.
(2002) 4 SCC 85; and State of Goa v.
Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC
755).

15. In Chandrappa and Ors. v.
State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415,
this Court reiterated the legal position as
under:

"(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
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise 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."

16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450, this
Court re-iterated the said view, observing
that the appellate court in dealing with the
cases in which the trial courts have
acquitted the accused, should bear in mind
that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent. The
appellate court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial
court as the trial court had the distinct
advantage of watching the demeanour of
the witnesses, and was in a better position
to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

17. In State of Rajasthan v.
Naresh @ Ram Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368,
the Court again examined the earlier
judgments of this Court and laid down that
an "order of acquittal should not be lightly
interfered with even if the court believes
that there is some evidence pointing out the
finger towards the accused."

18. In State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC
271, this Court gave certain illustrative
circumstances in which the Court would be
justified in interfering with a judgment of
5 All. Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155
acquittal
by
the
High
Court.
The
circumstances includes:

i) The High Court's decision is
based on totally erroneous view of law by
ignoring the settled legal position;

ii) The High Court's conclusions
are contrary to evidence and documents on
record;

iii) The entire approach of the
High Court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal leading to grave
miscarriage of justice;

iv) The High Court's judgment is
manifestly unjust and unreasonable based
on erroneous law and facts on the record of
the case;

v) This Court must always give
proper weight and consideration to the
findings of the High Court;

vi)
This
Court
would
be
extremely reluctant in interfering with a
case when both the Sessions Court and the
High Court have recorded an order of
acquittal.

A
similar
view
has
been
reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v.
State by Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009)
10 SCC 401.

19. Thus, the law on the issue can
be summarised to the effect that in
exceptional
cases
where
there
are
compelling
circumstances,
and
the
judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere
with the order of acquittal. The appellate
court should bear in mind the presumption
of innocence of the accused and further that
the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption of his innocence. Interference
in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are
good reasons for interference."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of
Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 972 has observed that while deciding
appeal against acquittal, the High Court has
to first record its conclusion on the question
whether the approach of the trial court
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal or conclusion arrived by it is wholly
untenable
which
alone
will
justify
interference in an order of acquittal.

12. The aforesaid judgments were
taken note of with approval by Supreme
Court in the case of Anwar Ali and
another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2020) 10 SCC 166, Nagabhushan vs.
State of Karnataka (2021) 5 SCC 222,
and Babu (supra) in Achhar Singh vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC
543.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Rajput Ruda Maha and others vs.
State of Gujarat 1980 SCR (2) 353 after
hearing the learned counsel and examining
the petition of appeal and after going
through the relevant parts of the judgment
of the High Court, after recording that there
are no sufficient grounds of interference
dismissed the appeal summarily under
Section 384 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

14. Now we proceed to consider
the present appeal on merits.

15. It is not in dispute that the first
information report was registered with the
allegation that the incident had taken place
on 4.6.2012 at about 09:00 P.M. and the
first information report was registered at
21:50 on the same date and the distance of
the police station is about 4 kms. Thus, a
prompt first information report was lodged.
First information report was undisputedly
lodged against unknown persons and no
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eye witness has been named. The alleged
eye witnesses have come only through
affidavits that too after about eight days. It
is also not in dispute that no empty
cartridge was recovered from the spot.
P.W.-1 the informant, namely, Virendra is
son of the deceased and P.W.-5, Phoolwati,
is the wife of the deceased. A categorical
finding was recorded that the bloodstained
clothes of Phoolwati, who embraced the
dead body of Dorilal and claimed that her
clothes
were
bloodstained,
were
not
produced or made exhibits in the present
case. The accused persons were allegedly
arrested after a long gap on 12/13.7.2012
and it is highly improbable that the accused
Geetaram
would
be
carrying
empty
cartridge used in the incident with him.
Therefore, in our opinion the importance of
F.S.L.
report
that
empty
cartridge
recovered from the accused Geetaram was
fired from the same countrymade pistol of
315 bore, lost its important in the present
case.

16. It is settled law that the eye
witness account of related witnesses cannot
be rejected merely on the ground that they
are relatives of the deceased. However, we
find that in the present case the alleged
witnesses have come in picture only
through affidavits after about eight days
whereas, significantly, the first information
report was lodged promptly, which was
allegedly written in the presence of the eye
witnesses but still their names were not
mentioned in the first information report.
Therefore, we also find that it was rightly
observed by the trial court that there was
material
contradiction
regarding
their
presence and description of the alleged
incident that had taken place. That apart,
we also noticed that in the first information
report itself it has been stated that the
incident had taken place when certain
persons were committing theft of electricity
cable from electricity poll but they could
not succeed and the cable was found
hanging from the electricity poll itself, as
has
been
clearly
mentioned
in
the
judgment.

17. Further, if as per the eye
witness account the accused-respondents
were seen to have committed the offence,
they
were
not
named
in
the
first
information report. On the contrary, PW-1,
Phoolwati had stated that the accused
persons were present at the time of
preparation of papers by the police and they
had gone to Mathura and brought the dead
body after postmortem and were also
present at the time of cremation.

18. Even in regard to the affidavits of
alleged eye witnesses sworn on 22.6.2012
they have stated in the cross-examination
that they have not executed any such
affidavits and further P.W.-1 has barely
signed the affidavit and other two witnesses
have clearly stated that they are illiterate
and they have put their thumb impression
in the affidavit but correctness of the
affidavits
was
denied
by
giving
contradictory stand, therefore, the same
cannot be form basis of eye witness
account of the incident, which otherwise, as
held by the trial court, could not be proved
by the prosecution.

19. In above circumstances, it cannot
be said that the trial court has failed to take
into consideration the admissible evidence
or had taken into consideration the
evidence brought on record contrary to law
on reaching above finding.

20. In such view of the matter, we
find that the view as has been taken by the
trial court and the judgment of the trial
5 All. Prithvi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
court is not perverse in nature so as to call
interference of this Court.

21. Consequently, after hearing the
learned counsel for the applicant and
examining the petition of appeal and after
going through the detailed discussion of
evidence on record, we are of the opinion
that the finding recorded by the trial court
recording acquittal of the accused is
according to the law and we find that there
is no sufficient ground for interference. The
appeal is summarily dismissed under
Section 384 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1157
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (Leave To Appeal) No. 329
of 2012
(U/s 372 Cr.P.C.)

Prithvi Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajul Bhargava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Sections 29, 37, 372, 378,
394, 394(2), 404, 417 & 431 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34-
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal -
against order of acquittal in a case of murder -
during pendency the appeal sole appellant were
died - in such circumstances - a question is
arises - whether the appeal filed U/s 372 Cr.P.C.
by the Victim would be abate on the death of
appellant - the right to appeal is controlled
differently when an appeal is filed under
different provisions of the code - therefore the
scheme of right of appeal under Chapter XXXIX
of Cr.P.C. which provides the right to appeals
including abatement of appeals has to be
understood on the basis of the golden rules of
statutory interpretation - in view of the light of
judgment of Avtar Singh Dhesi's present appeal
would stand abated.(Para - 23, 24, 25, 33, 48,
49)

Appeal Abated. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Khedu Mohton & ors. Vs St. of Bihar (1971
AIR 66 SC),

2. Avtar Singh Dhesi 6 Vs Ajaib Singh (Jabba)
2015 SCC Online P & H 10017,

3. Dhirendra Nath Das, his Lrs Malaya Das Vs St.
of Assam 2019 SCC Online Gua 5669 DB,

4. Nelson Motis Vs U.O.I., AIR 1992 SC 1981,

5. Kanailal Sur Vs Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, AIR
1957 SC 907,

6. St. of U. P. Vs Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963
SC 946,

7. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd Vs
Custodian of Vested Forests, AIR 1990 SC 1747,

8. Raghunath Rai Bareja Vs Punjab National
Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230,

9. Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning
Factory Vs Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR
1961 SC 1596,

10. Motiram Ghelabhai (deceased L.R.) Vs Jagan
Nagar (deceased L.Rs.) & ors., AIR 1985 SC
709,

11. Sundaram Pillai Vs Pattabiraman, (1985) 1
SCC 591,

12. Government of 11 Andhra Pradesh Vs P.
Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720,