Rashid Aziz Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - cheemalapati ganeswara rao [1964]3scr297 ,it was held that the expression 'same transaction' occurring in clauses (a) and (d) of section 239 as well as that occurring in section 235(i) ought to be given the same meaning according to the normal rule of construction of statutes. like the one in hand, of which the district magistrate himself is the author may not be proper in the larger public interest on account of the legal problems indicated earlier. 11. in view of the discussion made earlier we are clearly of the opinion that the order dated 13-6-1996 passed by the district magistrate was not an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, to the officer in-charge of a police station as contemplated by section 154, cr.g.p. mathur, j.1. the points involved in this bunch of writ petitions is similar and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order.2. the three principal prayers made in the writ petitions are (1) that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the first information report dated 13-6-1996 which was registered as case crime no. 700 of 1996 under sections 419, 420, 470 and 471, i.p.c. of police station coloneganj, allahabad (2) that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid f.i.r. and (3) that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the senior superintendent of police, allahabad not to compel the petitioners to deposit their weapons.3. from the short counter-affidavit filed by sri jagdish prasad yadav, arms clerk, collectorate allahabad in writ petition no. 2287 of 1996, it transpires that the senior superintendent of police of another district namely ambedkar nagar sent a letter dated 5-4-1996 to the district magistrate, allahabad making inquiry regarding the arms licences of certain persons who were arrested in connection with a criminal case in his district. the city magistrate/officer in-charge arms, after inquiry, came to the conclusion that the entries made in the arms register, maintained in the office of the district magistrate, allahabad, showing grant of arms licences in favour of the aforesaid persons who had been arrested in district ambedkar nagar were forged and fictitious. the district magistrate, allahabad, then by his order dated 16-4-1996 constituted a three member committee consisting of sri k. s. k. dwivedi, a.d.m. (city), sri k. n. singh a. d. m. (admn.) and sri s. k. singh, city-magistrate, officer in-charge, arms to hold an inquiry. the committee after considering relevant document submitted a detailed report dated 13-6-1996 to the district magistrate. after receipt of the report the district magistrate passed an order on the same day i.e., on 13-6-1996 and as it has a bearing on the controversy involved, it is being reproduced in toto. dk;kzy; vkns'k la[;k 1420'k- fy- fnukad16&4&96 ds vurxzr xfbr tkp lfefr] ftls 'kl= vuqhkkx dh 'kl= iaft;ksaesa dh xbz vos/k izfof'v;ksa dh tkp dk dk;z lksaik x;k fkk] dh vk[;kfnukad 13&6&96 ,oa mlds lkfk layxu lwph dk voyksdu fd;k a tkp vk[;k dsvuqlkj lwph esa vafdr fooj.k dqy i`'b 1 yxk;r 22 rd ds lhkh 'kl= ykblsulksadh izfof'v;ka 'kl= ykblsal iaft;ksa esa izfke n`'v;k qthz gksuk ik;kx;k a tkp vk[;k lwph ds lhkh 'kl= ykblsulksa dks fujlr fd;s tkus ,oarrdkyhu vk;q/k fyfid o lwph esa vafdr lhkh o;fdr;ksa ds fo:) nqjfhk laf/k ,oa'km;u= djds 'kl= iath esa qthz bunzkt djus ,oa mdr vkijkf/kd dr ls qthz