Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

.....each. state has preferred appeal only against that part of the judgment and order, whereby accused shankarlal, nandlal and chhotelal have been found guilty under section 324 ipc and accused dinesh has been acquitted. accused gopal has preferred appeal on the ground that in view of the free fight between accused and the complainant party and the nature of injuries sustained by some of the accused persons, he deserves to be acquitted. it is pertinent to mention here that state has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the high court wherein and whereunder conviction and sentence awarded to accused gopal under section 302 ipc was altered to one under section 304 part-i ipc. in this view of the matter, the state cannot challenge that accused gopal should have been convicted under section 302 ipc. accused chhotelal inflicted blow by cycle-chain on tulsiram. accused dinesh was pelting stones on the injured persons. in defence, the accused had also examined two witnesses. since, injuries were sustained by shankarlal and gopal. it was also contended by learned counsel for the accused gopal that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by shankarlal and gopal and the complainant party was aggressor. as mentioned hereinabove, since there is no appeal preferred by the state against that part of the judgment whereby the accused gopal has been found guilty for commission of offence under section 304 part-i ipc and acquitted under section 302 ipc, we are afraid, there cannot be any scope for considering the conviction of accused gopal from section 304 part-i to 302 ipc. 1. as per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was having electricity connection for domestic purposes. there were arrears of electricity dues due from the petitioner. in order to settle the electricity dues, the petitioner deposited rs. 1,000/- under the one time settlement scheme and got himself registered under the scheme. 2. shri pankaj dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has obtained instructions in the matter.he states that even though the petitioner got himself registered under the one time settlement scheme, and accordingly an amount of rs. 30,986/- was determined as payable by the petitioner under the said scheme, the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount within the period contemplated under the said scheme, and consequently, recovery proceedings in respect of the entire electricity dues have been initiated against the petitioner. 3. shri dubey states that an amount of rs. 85,428.20 is due from the petitioner towards the entire electricity dues. citation dated 12.1.2011 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) has been issued wherein an amount of rs. 85,428.20 plus other charges has been shown as recoverable from the petitioner.4. shri r.k. pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount of electricity dues due from him in case, reasonable time is granted to him for making the deposit.5. shri pankaj dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 have no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.6. in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that within a month from today, the petitioner willdeposit the amount of rs. 85,428.00 plus 50% of collection charges with the respondent no. 2.7. in case the amount is so deposited by the petitioner, recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be dropped.8. however, in the event of.....