Aslam Vs. State of U.P.

Aslam vs State of U.P.

Disposition Application allowed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 15, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487951

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/487951
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: K.N. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Sep 15, 2003
Case Number: C.M.A No. 2609 of 2003
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 321

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aslam

Advocate Dharmendra Singhal, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 321
Cases Referred: State of U.P. v. Aslam
Reported In: 2004CriLJ979

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted......procedure the applicant has sought for quashing of proceedings of criminal case no. 25 of 1998 -- state of u.p. v. aslam under section 3/7, essential commodities act of police outpost chharra of police station, barla, district aligarh.2. the brief facts, giving rise to the present application, are that an f.i.r. was lodged at police out post chharra of police station, barla, district aligarh under section 3/7, essential commodities act, which was registered as case crime no. 209/1997, by which the applicant accused aslam was found selling the fertilizer and when raid was conducted many bags of d.a.p. fertilizer and few other articles -- red powder ashes of coal was found. the applicant by means of red powder and coal ashes manufactured duplicate d.a.p. fertilizers, causing loss to farmers.3. the case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused applicant. the special judge (e.c. act) called for the evidence in the matter and proceeded with the case. while the case was proceeding, the government issued a government order dated 30-10-2001, withdrawing all the prosecutions in respect of section 3/7 of the essential commodities act.4. the public prosecutor moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution but the same was rejected by the court. hence this application.5. i have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned a.g.a. and perused the government order no. 6655/92-7-2000 n-11/94 dated 19-12-2000. the government order shows that government of u.p. decided to withdraw all the cases pending in various courts under the essential commodities act, at whatever stage, they were proceeding.6. the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that section 321 of the code of criminal procedure lays down that public prosecutor, with the consent of the court, at any time, before the judgment is pronounced, may withdraw from the prosecution of any person, either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences, of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.N. Sinha, J.

1. By means of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant has sought for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 25 of 1998 -- State of U.P. v. Aslam under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act of police outpost Chharra of police station, Barla, District Aligarh.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present application, are that an F.I.R. was lodged at police out post Chharra of police station, Barla, District Aligarh under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, which was registered as case crime No. 209/1997, by which the applicant accused Aslam was found selling the fertilizer and when raid was conducted many bags of D.A.P. fertilizer and few other articles -- red powder ashes of coal was found. The applicant by means of red powder and coal ashes manufactured duplicate D.A.P. fertilizers, causing loss to farmers.

3. The case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused applicant. The Special Judge (E.C. Act) called for the evidence in the matter and proceeded with the case. While the case was proceeding, the Government issued a Government Order dated 30-10-2001, withdrawing all the prosecutions in respect of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

4. The Public Prosecutor moved an application for withdrawal of the prosecution but the same was rejected by the Court. Hence this application.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the Government Order No. 6655/92-7-2000 N-11/94 dated 19-12-2000. The Government order shows that Government of U.P. decided to withdraw all the cases pending in various Courts under the Essential Commodities Act, at whatever stage, they were proceeding.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the Court, at any time, before the judgment is pronounced, may withdraw from the prosecution of any person, either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences, of which he is tried. This provision also lays down that if the charges are framed, the accused shall be acquitted and if charge has not been framed, the accused shall be discharged.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Girish Chand Gupta alias Ram Babu v. State of U.P. (2002 (2) JIC 887 (All).

8. In the above judgment, the same question regarding the withdrawal from the prosecution, under the above Government Order, was involved. This Court held that nature of the offence shall not be said to be valid ground for rejecting the application for the withdrawal of the prosecution. It was further held that it was the duty of the Court to have appreciated the grounds, which prompted the Public Prosecutor to request for the withdrawal from the prosecution and should not have rejected the application merely looking the nature of the offence without caring to see its gravity.

9. The Government order itself shows that the Government of U.P. has taken this decision in public interest and no distinction for any class was made. The Court was, therefore, absolutely unjustified in refusing the permission to withdraw the case.

10. The application is hereby allowed and proceeding of Criminal Case No. 25 of 1998 -- State of U.P. v. Aslam under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act of police outpost Chharra at police station, Barla, district Aligarh is quashed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Aslam vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.N. Sinha, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 321

Criminal