Uma Shankar Vs. State of U.P.

.....had to be made under cl. (a) of s. 127 by the executive officer, starting from the proceeding mentioned under s. 131(2)(b). the respondent thereupon appealed to the high court. but the contentions raised by it were rejected; however, in view of the fact that the time-limit for an assessment by the executive officer under s. 131(2)(b) having expired he could no more make the valuation which the court of small causes directed him to make and to prevent the corporation being deprived of its rates as a result of such expiry of time, the high court made an order remanding the case to the court of small causes and directed it to make the valuation itself. in the appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the original valuation had been cancelled because of an irregularity, the present case fell within s. 131(2)(b), and the high court had no power to remand the case for a valuation by the lower court-. and that in any event the order of remand was unjustifiable because it converted the appellant's appeal to the court of small causes into a proceeding wholly alien to what it was originally meant for. in that it went beyond the scope of the objection made by the appellant under s. 139. on the other hand, it wag the respondent's contention that the present case was one of revision and alteration of a valuation contemplated in ss. 147 and 164 and not one of cancellation of a valuation within the meaning of s. 131(2)(b). held:(per sarkar and raghubar dayal jj.) the high court's order remanding the case to the court of small causes with a direction to ascertain the annual value could not be sustained. the liability for rates is a statutory liability under the act and for such liability to arise the valuation had to be made as provided in the statute. the act does not contemplate that rates may be fixed on the basis of a valuation made by a court such a valuation would create no statutory liability. it would be fruitless to direct the court of..........to uma shankar alone and not to the others. pw 1 clearly admitted in his evidence that there was enmity between the parties and in that connection the witness deposed as follows :the case under section 307 was decided on 19-4-69 and we were acquitted. in that 307 ipc case accused persons named umashankar and pikarma present in court and satti din and lal bihari were prosecution witnesses. against all these four witnesses a case regarding giving of false evidence was started. there accused persons were inimical to my nephew padum prasad and myself.it was argued by mr. goswami and in the background of this enmity, it appears, that uma shanker has been falsely implicated. there is no reason by the prosecution for the vital change of the act attributed to uma shanker when the case was put forward in the court, as compared to the one which was mentioned at the first instance in the fir no other act of participation in the crime hat been attributed to the appellant uma shankar at all. there appears to be a very reasonable possibility of the appellant having been implicated due to enmity and given the assignment of incitement to seek personal vendetta. in the circumstances, therefore, we feel that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. for these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. the appellant, now, shall be discharged from his bail bonds.