State v. Mool Chandra and others

contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. iii) Issue such any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances o the case." 2 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was arrested by the Police Station Kotwali Bikaner, Rajasthan in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 in pursuance of the FIR lodged at 05:13 P.M. under Sections 36(6) E, Section 43(e), Section 46(B) 1971 Defence of India Rules and sent to jail on 19.11.1975 during emergency promulgated by the Government of India alongwith some other co-accused. He remained in jail from 19.11.1975 to 25.02.1976. A copy of the F.I.R. has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The co- accused of the petitioner was facing Trial in the same Criminal Trial No.124 of 1976 Case Crime No.338 of 1975 [State Vs. Mool Chandra and others] had given a certificate in his favour which is the requirement of getting pension of an amount of Rs.500/- per month (Rupees Five Hundred Only) sanctioned by the Authority concerned in pursuance of a Scheme framed for giving pension to Loktantra Senani.

4. The petitioner was sanctioned such pension on 20.11.1979, copy of such sanctioned letter has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. With the passage of time, the petitioner came to Stay in District Barabanki, U.P. He applied for 'Loktantra Senani Samman Pension' under the U.P. Act of 2016, 'U.P. Loktantra Senani Samman Adhiniyam' hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2016. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.20873 (M/B) of 2016 [Vijay Kumar Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others] for a direction to the Respondents to take an expeditious decision for grant of pension to the petitioner under the Scheme quoted in pursuance of the Act of 2016. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of pension in the light of the Government Order dated 14.09.2012 and the Rules framed thereunder. The matter remained pending as correspondence was carried out from the office of the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to the District Magistrate, Bikaner Rajasthan. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 29.10.2016, without there being an appropriate report sent by the District Collector, Barabanki. On

12.07.2018 the District Collector, Bikaner, verified the petitioner's 3 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020 detention during the requisite period with effect from 19.11.1975 to

25.02.1976 during emergency period. The claim of the petitioner was verified by District Collector, Bikaner and supported by the statements of two more detenues namely Sri Dutt and Sri Mool Chandra Solanki. The petitioner came to know that the entire information was submitted before the District Magistrate, Barabanki. At the time when the report was submitted by the District Collector, Bikaner, copy of the FIR, Case Diary and relevant Criminal Records could not be sent.

5. Since the F.I.R. and the Case Diary could not be traced out, the case of the petitioner remain pending. The District Collector, Bikaner, only on the basis of material which was available on record had recorded opinion in favour of the petitioner and sent its report to District Magistrate, Barabanki. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, did not agree with the report / opinion of District Collector, Bikaner and on 15.12.2019, the petitioner filed a Representation before the District Magistrate, Barabanki, on which the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing great hardship as there is no independent source of income. He needs financial support. He has no criminal history except the aforesaid D.I.R. Case.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the only issue that has troubled the District Magistrate, Barabanki, is with regard to non-certification of actually undergoing incarceration in jail from

19.11.1975 upto 25.02.1976 when he was arrested.

8. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, has referred to the report of the District Collector, Bikaner. He has also referred to the two affidavits given in support of the petitioner's claim by two of his co- prisoners over the co-accused in Case Crime No.338 of 1975.

9. In order to prove incarceration, the petitioner has referred to the 4 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the petitioner in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 which led to registering of criminal case no.124 of 1976.

10. A copy of such judgment and order dated 15.12.1976 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition.

11. It has been pointed out that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as Accused No.2 whereas one of the co-prisoner's name has been mentioned as Accused No.6 Sri Dutt, son of Om Dutt and Mool Chandra Solanki son of Tola Ram is the Accused No.1. The counsel has pointed out Paragraph-1 of the said judgment and the last sentence thereof, it has been mentioned that after lodging of FIR on 13.11.1975 the accused persons were arrested, charge-sheet was filed and criminal case registered.

12. After pleadings were exchanged, the matter has come up for hearing before this Court. We have gone through the various affidavits filed by the parties. More importantly supplementary counter affidavit filed on 12.05.2025 which was filed in compliance of order passed by this Court on 02.01.2025. The operative portion of the order dated 02.01.2025 is being quoted hereinebelow:- "4. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be better if the opposite party no.1 gets the veracity of the F.I.R. and the judgment, copies of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition verified from the concerned department of the State of Rajasthan through its own channels as it may be too cumbersome task for the petitioner to accomplish. We, therefore, direct the Opposite party no.1 to get the genuineness of the documents verified from the concerned department of the State of Rajasthan and then filed an affidavit in this Court.

5. As the aforesaid exercise may take some time, let this matter come up before this Court in the Third Week of April, 2025.

6. In the meantime, the aforesaid exercise be completed by the opposite party no.1 and result thereof would be brought on record. 5 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020

7. The petitioner may also, if possible, make an effort in this regard."

13. In the said affidavit filed by the Respondents, letter of the District Collector, Bikaner, dated 16.04.2025 and the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, dated 04.03.2025 have been filed wherein lodging of the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 on

17.11.1975 in Police Station Kotwali, District Bikaner, has been admitted and the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, on 15.12.1976 has been admitted. The Superintendent of Police has verified the names of the accused. The Central Jail, Bikaner, has also submitted a report on

15.03.2025 but in such Letter / Report of Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner, he could not verify the authenticity of the F.I.R. or the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as his record has been weeded out.

14. Having gone through such affidavit and its Annexures and also having gone through the impugned order and the Certificates/ Affidavits in favour of the petitioner by Accused No.1 Mool Chandra Solanki and Accused No.6 Sri Dutt son of Om Dutt, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The petitioner's case is genuine and ought to be considered with expedition and an appropriate order be passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Barabanki, within a period of four weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

15. The writ petition is allowed in view of the observations made hereinabove. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) December 1, 2025 N.PAL NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. iii) Issue such any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances o the case." 2 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was arrested by the Police Station Kotwali Bikaner, Rajasthan in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 in pursuance of the FIR lodged at 05:13 P.M. under Sections 36(6) E, Section 43(e), Section 46(B) 1971 Defence of India Rules and sent to jail on 19.11.1975 during emergency promulgated by the Government of India alongwith some other co-accused. He remained in jail from 19.11.1975 to 25.02.1976. A copy of the F.I.R. has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The co- accused of the petitioner was facing Trial in the same Criminal Trial No.124 of 1976 Case Crime No.338 of 1975 [State Vs. Mool Chandra and others] had given a certificate in his favour which is the requirement of getting pension of an amount of Rs.500/- per month (Rupees Five Hundred Only) sanctioned by the Authority concerned in pursuance of a Scheme framed for giving pension to Loktantra Senani.

4. The petitioner was sanctioned such pension on 20.11.1979, copy of such sanctioned letter has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. With the passage of time, the petitioner came to Stay in District Barabanki, U.P. He applied for 'Loktantra Senani Samman Pension' under the U.P. Act of 2016, 'U.P. Loktantra Senani Samman Adhiniyam' hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2016. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.20873 (M/B) of 2016 [Vijay Kumar Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others] for a direction to the Respondents to take an expeditious decision for grant of pension to the petitioner under the Scheme quoted in pursuance of the Act of 2016. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of pension in the light of the Government Order dated 14.09.2012 and the Rules framed thereunder. The matter remained pending as correspondence was carried out from the office of the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to the District Magistrate, Bikaner Rajasthan. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 29.10.2016, without there being an appropriate report sent by the District Collector, Barabanki. On

12.07.2018 the District Collector, Bikaner, verified the petitioner's 3 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020 detention during the requisite period with effect from 19.11.1975 to

25.02.1976 during emergency period. The claim of the petitioner was verified by District Collector, Bikaner and supported by the statements of two more detenues namely Sri Dutt and Sri Mool Chandra Solanki. The petitioner came to know that the entire information was submitted before the District Magistrate, Barabanki. At the time when the report was submitted by the District Collector, Bikaner, copy of the FIR, Case Diary and relevant Criminal Records could not be sent.

5. Since the F.I.R. and the Case Diary could not be traced out, the case of the petitioner remain pending. The District Collector, Bikaner, only on the basis of material which was available on record had recorded opinion in favour of the petitioner and sent its report to District Magistrate, Barabanki. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, did not agree with the report / opinion of District Collector, Bikaner and on 15.12.2019, the petitioner filed a Representation before the District Magistrate, Barabanki, on which the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing great hardship as there is no independent source of income. He needs financial support. He has no criminal history except the aforesaid D.I.R. Case.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the only issue that has troubled the District Magistrate, Barabanki, is with regard to non-certification of actually undergoing incarceration in jail from

19.11.1975 upto 25.02.1976 when he was arrested.

8. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, has referred to the report of the District Collector, Bikaner. He has also referred to the two affidavits given in support of the petitioner's claim by two of his co- prisoners over the co-accused in Case Crime No.338 of 1975.

9. In order to prove incarceration, the petitioner has referred to the 4 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the petitioner in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 which led to registering of criminal case no.124 of 1976.

10. A copy of such judgment and order dated 15.12.1976 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition.

11. It has been pointed out that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as Accused No.2 whereas one of the co-prisoner's name has been mentioned as Accused No.6 Sri Dutt, son of Om Dutt and Mool Chandra Solanki son of Tola Ram is the Accused No.1. The counsel has pointed out Paragraph-1 of the said judgment and the last sentence thereof, it has been mentioned that after lodging of FIR on 13.11.1975 the accused persons were arrested, charge-sheet was filed and criminal case registered.

12. After pleadings were exchanged, the matter has come up for hearing before this Court. We have gone through the various affidavits filed by the parties. More importantly supplementary counter affidavit filed on 12.05.2025 which was filed in compliance of order passed by this Court on 02.01.2025. The operative portion of the order dated 02.01.2025 is being quoted hereinebelow:- "4. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be better if the opposite party no.1 gets the veracity of the F.I.R. and the judgment, copies of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition verified from the concerned department of the State of Rajasthan through its own channels as it may be too cumbersome task for the petitioner to accomplish. We, therefore, direct the Opposite party no.1 to get the genuineness of the documents verified from the concerned department of the State of Rajasthan and then filed an affidavit in this Court.

5. As the aforesaid exercise may take some time, let this matter come up before this Court in the Third Week of April, 2025.

6. In the meantime, the aforesaid exercise be completed by the opposite party no.1 and result thereof would be brought on record. 5 WRIC No. 19870 of 2020

7. The petitioner may also, if possible, make an effort in this regard."

13. In the said affidavit filed by the Respondents, letter of the District Collector, Bikaner, dated 16.04.2025 and the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, dated 04.03.2025 have been filed wherein lodging of the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.338 of 1975 on

17.11.1975 in Police Station Kotwali, District Bikaner, has been admitted and the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, on 15.12.1976 has been admitted. The Superintendent of Police has verified the names of the accused. The Central Jail, Bikaner, has also submitted a report on

15.03.2025 but in such Letter / Report of Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner, he could not verify the authenticity of the F.I.R. or the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as his record has been weeded out.

14. Having gone through such affidavit and its Annexures and also having gone through the impugned order and the Certificates/ Affidavits in favour of the petitioner by Accused No.1 Mool Chandra Solanki and Accused No.6 Sri Dutt son of Om Dutt, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The petitioner's case is genuine and ought to be considered with expedition and an appropriate order be passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Barabanki, within a period of four weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

15. The writ petition is allowed in view of the observations made hereinabove. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) December 1, 2025 N.PAL NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench