Vijay Kumar Dwivedi. Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Dwivedi. vs The State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 25, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911071

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/911071
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Raj Mani Chauhan, J.
Decided On: Jun 25, 2010
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Case No. 4718 (B) of 2010.
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to Release the goods Viz., 103 Units of old and Used Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machines with Standard Accessories, imported vide Bill of Entry No.793351, dated 26.02.2011, under Free as Second Hand Capital...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7,13 (1) (d) Read with 13 (2) ; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 ; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vijay Kumar Dwivedi.

Respondent

The State of U.P.

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7,13 (1) (d) Read with 13 (2) ; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 ; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 156 (3) ;

Excerpt

prayer: petition filed seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to release the goods viz., 103 units of old and used digital multifunction print & copying machines with standard accessories, imported vide bill of entry no.793351, dated 26.02.2011, under free as second hand capital goods in terms of para 2.17 read with definitions under 9.12 of the foreign trade policy 2009-2014 without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in para 2.17 of foreign trade policy and in para 2.33 of hand book of procedures 2009-2014 and any notification by 3rd respondent......the application was allowed by the chief judicial magistrate and s.o. of p.s. sahayal was directed to register and investigate the case. consequently, the police of p.s. sahayal registered a case against the wife of sri amar singh under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 ipc for investigation. the case was being investigated by sri vijay kumar dwivedi. the complainant, sri amar sing tried to get favour from the accused (sri dwivedi) who did not cooperate him. he apprehended that the accused may file charge-sheet against his wife. he thereafter got the accused falsely implicated in this case. in fact, the accused neither had accepted any amount from the complainant in the form of bribery nor any amount was recovered from his possession. the recovery officer has manipulated a false story just to harass the accused. the accused, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.4. the learned a.g.a. opposed the bail. considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned a.g.a for the state. from a perusal of the copy of the recovery memo (annexure 10) it appears that the deputy superintendent of police, anti corruption who is a gazetted officer in the rank had laid a trap and recovered the amount of bribery given by the complainant to the accused. two officers namely sri rakesh kumar soni, tahsildar, auraiya and sri rakesh kumar pateria, assistant engineer, drda who are responsible officers are witnesses of the episode. keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the as well as nature of offence i do not find it a fit case for bail. the bail application is, therefore, rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Learned counsel for the applicant files rejoinder affidavit and learned A.G.A. files counter affidavit, which are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record. The accused applicant Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Sub Inspector, S/o Shri Ram Kumar Dwivedi, R/o Devchali, Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur presently posted at Police Station Sahayal, District Auraiya, present address Mohallah Barra-II, House No. 107, LIC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 91/2010, under Section 7 and 13

(1) (d) read with Section 13

(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, from P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya and he has applied for bail. The prosecution case as borne out from the First Information Report, in brief, is that one Amar Singh, S/o Maujilal, R/o Village Karchala, P.S. Sahayal, District Auraiya on 10.5.2010 submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Lucknow with the allegation that one Ujiyare Lal resident of the same Gram Sabha had lodged a false criminal case under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 IPC against his wife (Smt. Meena Devi who is the Village Pradhan) at the Police Station Sahayal, District Auraiya which was being investigated by Sri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Sub Inspector. Sri Dwivedi demanded Rs. 25,000/- from him for submitting final report in the matter. He under the compulsion had accepted to pay Rs. 10,000/- to him instead of Rs. 25,000/-. The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Lucknow on the complaint of the complainant directed Sri Tej Pal Verma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption to organize a trap. Consequently, Sri Verma constituted a party for laying the trap. He taking Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant observed all the formalities and thereafter used chemicals on the currency notes and thereafter returned the same to the complainant. Sri Verma went at the District Headquarter, Auraiya and contacted the District Magistrate, Auraiya. He requested the District Magistrate to provide officer to be witness for laying the trap. Consequently, the District Magistrate ordered Sri Rakesh Kumar Soni, Tahsildar, Auraiya and Sri Rakesh Kumar Pateria, Assistant Engineer, DRDA to cooperate Sri Verma. Consequently, Sri Verma along with his party and the witnesses Sri Rakesh Kumar Soni and Sri Rakesh Kumar Pateria reached at the Police Chowki, NTPC, Auraiya on 12.5.2010 at about 20:30 P.M. He sent the complainant and two constables namely Vinod Kumar Awasthi and Dharmendra Kumar Sharma in civil dress to Sri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, S.I. who was present there at the Police Outpost. The complainant gave him Rs. 10,000/- in the meantime constable Vinod Kumar Awasthi and Dharmendra Kumar Sharma caught hold of him with the amount given by the complainant. The trap team too immediately reached there and recovered the amount from Sri Dwivedi which was given by the complainant. Sri Verma prepared the recovery memo on the spot and arrested Sri Dwivedi. The police of P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya on the basis of recovery memo registered a case under Section 7 and 13

(1) (d) read with 13

(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused for investigation.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that admittedly one Ujiyare Lal, S/o Bishnu, R/o Karchala, P.S. Sahayal, District Auraiya moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya to direct the S.O. concerned to register and investigate the case against Smt. Meena Devi. The application was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and S.O. of P.S. Sahayal was directed to register and investigate the case. Consequently, the police of P.S. Sahayal registered a case against the wife of Sri Amar Singh under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC for investigation. The case was being investigated by Sri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi. The complainant, Sri Amar Sing tried to get favour from the accused (Sri Dwivedi) who did not cooperate him. He apprehended that the accused may file charge-sheet against his wife. He thereafter got the accused falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the accused neither had accepted any amount from the complainant in the form of bribery nor any amount was recovered from his possession. The recovery officer has manipulated a false story just to harass the accused. The accused, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.

4. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A for the State. From a perusal of the copy of the recovery memo (Annexure 10) it appears that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption who is a gazetted officer in the rank had laid a trap and recovered the amount of bribery given by the complainant to the accused. Two officers namely Sri Rakesh Kumar Soni, Tahsildar, Auraiya and Sri Rakesh Kumar Pateria, Assistant Engineer, DRDA who are responsible officers are witnesses of the episode. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the as well as nature of offence I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is, therefore, rejected.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Vijay Kumar Dwivedi. vs The State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Raj Mani Chauhan, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7,13 (1) (d) Re...

Criminal