State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kishore - Court Judgment |
| Service |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Feb-19-1987 |
| B.C. Ray and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ. |
| AIR1987SC1642; [1987(54)FLR571]; 1987LabIC1321; 1987Supp(1)SCC77 |
| State of U.P. |
| Raj Kishore |
.....act, 1961.[k.a. no. 8/1962]. sections 3(1) (h) & 30: person in management exclusion from applicability of act apparent conflict between section 30 and section3(1)(h) held, section3(1)(h) of the act require amendment. court cannot fill up a casus omissus. matter left open. -- 25 & 30(1): accused charged for offence under - order taking cognizance of offence by magistrate no infirmity found by high court held, order is not liable to be interfered with.-- section 438: anticipatory bail deletion of provision under section 438 cr.p.c. by section 9 of u.p. act 16/1976 - entailed filing of thousands of writ petitions and section 482 cr.p.c. applications in allahabad high court for stay of petitioners arrest and/or quashing fir deletion causing hardship to public, and overcrowding in jails problem will be obviated by restoring provision for anticipatory bail in state of u.p. court made strong recommendation to u.p. government to immediately issue ordinance to restore provision for anticipatory bail further, decision in amarawati & anr v state of u.p.,2005cri lj 755 (all) (fb) directed to be implemented in letter and spirit.(obiter)(per markandey katju, j.). .....we are upholding the decision of the high court on this point, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the other point, namely, as to whether the charge-sheet was issued by the competent authority and we leave the question open for decision in future if an occasion arises. the trial court will now proceed with the matter with expedition as directed by the high court and dispose it of in accordance with law preferably within three months of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. the appellant shall pay to the respondent the amount as may be determined by the trial court within three months thereafter.2. the appeal is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant who has taken us through the relevant parts of the record and the judgment of the High Court. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in taking the view that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority holding the respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct was based on 'no evidence'. We see no reason to disturb the said conclusion in this appeal by special leave. The reasoning of the High Court is unexceptionable and unassailable on this score. Since we are upholding the decision of the High Court on this point, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the other point, namely, as to whether the charge-sheet was issued by the competent authority and we leave the question open for decision in future if an occasion arises. The trial court will now proceed with the matter with expedition as directed by the High Court and dispose it of in accordance with law preferably within three months of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant shall pay to the respondent the amount as may be determined by the trial court within three months thereafter.
2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.