Allahabad High Court
Asha Ram vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2026
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2759 of 1988 Asha Ram ..Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.s. Hajela, Vijit Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Reserved on : 21.04.2026 Delivered on : 11.05.2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants Asha Ram and Chandan Singh against the judgment and order dated 02.12.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 12 of 1988 (State of U.P. Vs. Asha Ram and another) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and further the appellant no.2/Chandan Singh has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment. It has been ordered that in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo three months additional imprisonment. The sentence in so far as the accused Chandan Singh is concerned, has been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed and mentioned in the present judgment in the light of directions of the Apex Court in various judgments and as per Section 72 BNS/228-A IPC. She is thus referred to as victim X in the judgment.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant no.1/Asha Ram died and thus his appeal stood abated vide order dated 30.03.2026. It thus survives only for the appellant no.2/Chandan Singh.
4. An application dated 10.02.1987 was given by Harpe of which Babu Lal Kushwaha was the scribe to the SHO, P.S. Talbehat, District Lalitpur alleging therein that he is a resident of village Tapariya Bijrautha, P.S. Talbehat and an employee in the Railways doing service in Jakhlaun and his children live in the village. His cousin Masalti is a resident of Bijrautha where Assu was living since last 3 years. On 09.02.1987 at about 06:00 pm, his daughter had gone to the house of her mausi Bhaggo resident of Tapariya Bijrautha where Assu lured his daughter X who was aged about 17 years and was already married and enticed her away. When he was taking his daughter, Rajau Singh and his daughter saw them going and came to the house and told about it on which his wife ran to the house of her sister Bhaggo and told about his daughter X and she was searched a lot but she could not be traced and neither did they meet Assu. Later on, his wife called him on phone from Daulata Station and then he came from Jakhlaun Itarsi Passenger and went to his house and came to know of everything from his wife and has come to lodge a report. The same be lodged and action be taken. The said application is Exb: Ka-5 to the records.
5. On the basis of the said application, a First Information Report was lodged on 10.02.1987 at about 12:30 pm as Case Crime No. 29 of 1987, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Talbehat, District Lalitpur against Assu son of Bhaggu Kanchi. The chik FIR is Exb: Ka-1 to the records. G.D. corresponding to the said FIR was prepared on 10.02.1987 which is Exb: Ka-2 to the records.
6. The victim X was recovered on 08.08.1987 and her medical examination was done by Dr. Alka Agarwal, Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Lalitpur on 20.01.1988 and as per the same the doctor observed as under:
Physical examination- average built lady, weight 44 kg, height 49 inch, teeth 14/15. (Space for 1 last molar present). Breast well developed, vulva wall developed, axillary and pubic hair well developed. No mark of injury present on breast and on private parts.
Internal examination Hymen torn at 4-5 places, all old healed scar, vagina admitting two fingers easily, ut supine. Vaginal smear taken on two glass slides and send to pathology for detection of spermatozoa.
Opinion for age- Referred to x-ray for x-ray both elbow and wrist AP and LAT.
Opinion for rape- She is habitual of sexual intercourse, final opinion can be given only after vaginal smear report. The said report is Exb: Ka-3 to the records.
7. Supplementary report was given by the same doctor on 30.01.1988 which reads as under:
Vaginal smear report- no spermatozoa seen.
X-Ray both elbow joint AP All epiphysis around elbow joint are united.
X-Ray both wrist joint AP Pisiform present. Epiphysis for lower ends of radius and ulna are fused.
Opinion for age- Age of the lady is above 19 years.
Opinion for rape- She is habitual of sexual intercourse and vaginal smear shows no spermatozoa so it is difficult today whether rape is committed on her or not. The said report is Exb: Ka-4 to the records.
8. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared on 10.02.1987, the same is Exb: Ka-7 to the records.
9. Vide order dated 27.05.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Lalitpur charge under Section 366 IPC was framed against Asha Ram @ Assu and Chandan Singh. Further vide an order of the same date by the same court charge was framed under Section 376(2)(g) IPC against Chandan Singh. Both the accused were read over and explained the charges to which they denied and claimed to be tried.
10. It is relevant to state at this stage that the victim X was recovered on 08.08.1987 in a police encounter in jungle Kakrela wherein Harpal son of Pyare Rama was also apprehended and Case Crime No. 97 of 1987 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Case Crime No. 98 of 1987 under Section 25 of the Arms Act were registered at Thana Baar, District Lalitpur.
11. The trial in the matter started in which Head Constable Ziaul Haq was examined as PW-1 who transcribed the Chik FIR and the corresponding GD, Dr. Alka Agarwal as PW-2 who conducted the medical examination of the victim and gave a supplementary report, victim 'X' was examined as PW-3, Harpe the first informant and the father of the victim 'X' was examined as PW-4, S.D. Singh the second Investigating Officer who took the investigation from 18.05.1987 was examined as PW-5, Smt. Bhaggo was examined as PW-6 who is the mausi of the victim X, Tribhuvan Prasad Banaudha who took up the investigation from PW-5 from 24.12.1987 and filed charge sheet was examined as PW-7, Rajau Singh an alleged eye witness was examined as PW-8 and Bachan Singh the first Investigating Officer who did the investigation upto 18.05.1987 was examined as PW-9 in the trial.
12. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. The accused Asha Ram stated that the victim 'X' was deserted by her husband and her father asked to marry her which he refused and thus he has been falsely implicated. The accused Chandan Singh denied the prosecution case in whole and stated to be false implicated by the police due to enmity. In defence Aveer Singh was produced as DW-1 for Asha Ram @ Assu and Bhan Singh was examined as DW-2 for Chandan Singh. The trial court then finding the evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt and truthful convicted the accused appellants as above. The accused appellant Chandan Singh was not found guilty under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The present appeal has thus been filed.
13. PW-1 Ziaul Haq was the Head Constable posted at Police Station Talbehat on 10.09.1987. He states that on the said date at about 12:30 pm the informant came with the tehrir on the basis of which he prepared the chik FIR. He proves the same as Exb: Ka-1 to the records. On the basis of the chik FIR, he transcribed a corresponding GD. He proves the same as Exb: Ka-2 to the records.
In his cross examination, he states that it is incorrect that he with the informant got a report transcribed at the police station and then lodged the same.
14. PW-2 Dr. Alka Agarwal was posted on 20.01.1988 as the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Lalitpur. She states that on the said date at about 12:15 pm she medically examined victim 'X'. The details of the medical examination report given by her which have already been noted above. She proves the said medical examination report as Exb: Ka-3 to the records. Further she states that on 30.01.1988 the pathological report and x-ray report was received and she prepared a supplementary medical examination report on its basis. The details of the same have been stated by her which has already been noted above. She proves the same as Exb: Ka-4 to the records. She states that with regards to the age, the opinion which she has given has a variation of one year or two years.
In her cross examination, she states that it is correct that if a women is above 25 years of age even then she will give a report that she is above 19 years of age. Further she states that if a women is raped 15 days back then dead spermatozoa would be found in her vagina if semen is discharged in it.
15. Victim 'X' has been examined as PW-3. She states that at about 06:00 pm she was at the house of her mausi Bhaggo where there was a marriage. After sometime Assu @ Asha Ram came there and told her that her mother is calling her on which she went with him from where he took her to the well where Chandan was present and Nanhe Rajju came there. They then asked her to give water to drink on which she pulled water from the well and gave them to drink it and in the meantime all the three accused caught hold of her hand and took her towards the jungle on which she started shouting after which they wrapped her mouth with a safi and then all the accused took her to the jungle. Assu went till Kakrela and stayed there for two days and then she was left with Chandan and Nanhey Rajju and he went away. Chandan and Nanhey Rajju kept her for 5-6 months in the jungle with them. After about 5-6 months, in the month of Sawan, she was apprehended along with the accused. Chandan and Nanhe Rajju ran away but Harpal was apprehended along with her. Police got her medical examination conducted. When Chandan Singh and Nanhe Rajju had kept her in the jungle they used to forcibly commit rape on her.
In her cross examination, she states that her statement was not recorded before any Magistrate and neither did anyone record her statement. She further states that she was involved in a case under Section 307 IPC in which Chandan is also a co-accused. She did not fire on the police personnel. She states that prior to the incident, she was married to Rama resident of Basatguwan. Rama had deserted her around one and half years back. He had again married someone else. She was in her maternal house and had come to the house of her mausi. Asha Ram was living at the house of her relative since last 4-5 years. She did not use to visit Asha Ram earlier and was not knowing him earlier. Before the incident, she could have gone with Asha Ram anywhere but she did not go. Her house and the house of her mausi is at a distance. When the police had arrested her in the case under Section 307 IPC she was interrogated and she was asked as to what had happened with her and as to how she had come there. She in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that she had gone to the house of her mausi where Assu @ Asha Ram had come and stated that her mother is calling her and then she went with him but the Investigating Officer did not write it in her statement and she cannot tell the reason for it. She states that she had told the Investigating Officer that the accused had caught her at the well and had taken her from there. Her field is in the north of the well from where she was apprehended and in the south she has her field and all around the well and field there is a path. She does not know as to whose fields are near about the well. She does not know as to which direction does the road from the well to the village go. She saw Chandan and Nanhe Rajju on the day of the incident and then on the day of giving her testimony in Court, Nanhe Rajju is not present in court. The accused Assu @ Asha Ram and Chandan are present in court. She did not see Nanhe Rajju and Chandan before the incident. She did not tell the Investigating Officer about the physique of Chandan and Nanhe as he did not ask her. She only told their names to him. Assu did wrongful act with her. She had told the Investigating Officer about it. After 4-5 days Assu had did wrongful act with her. In her examination-in-chief, she did not tell about it. Harpal is not related to her. Harpal did not commit any wrongful act with her. After returning home, she told her parents about the entire incident. During the period, she was with the accused. She did not come to Lalitpur. She does not remember that on 18.02.1987 she was present in court of SDM, Lalitpur or not. She also does not know whether any application was given in the court of SDM, Lalitpur on that date. The Investigating Officer did not take her cloths in possession. She had told the Investigating Officer her age as 16 years. If he has not written the same, she cannot tell the reason about it. Rama did not entice her away. She was living in her maternal house out of her own will. After the incident, she did not go to Rama. The Investigating Officer apprehended her near Sansua Bagaura. The name of Kakrela village used to be taken by Chandan and Nanhe Rajju and thus she came to know of it. Her mausi came today but her mother has not come. Her mausi told her of the statement she has to give. She has given the same statement as her mausi told her. She has not told anything on her own. Her brother has also come to give statement. Her mausi has also told him what to state. It is incorrect to state that no such incident took place. She does not know that whether Assu is married or not. She states that is incorrect that she wanted to marry Assu forcibly and when he did not marry her then on the saying of her parents, a false case has been created and she has given a false evidence today. She further states that it is incorrect that she is falsely implicating Chandan Singh on the saying of police. She states further that it is incorrect that she is aged about more than 20 years.
16. Harpe PW-4 is the informant and the father of victim 'X'. He states that on the day of the incident he was on his duty. His wife and children used to live in Tapariya. From Daulata Station, his wife gave an information to Jakhlaun that Assu has enticed away his daughter. He then on the next day morning reached home on a passenger train. She then told him of the incident and told him that his daughter and Rajau had seen Assu going away. He then dictated a report to Babu Lal and after reading it and signed on it and went to the police station for lodging of a report. The tehrir has been proved as Exb: Ka-5 to the records. At the time of incident, his daughter was aged about 16 years and was at the house of her mausi from where the accused enticed her away. Police recovered his daughter after six months.
In his cross examination, he states that Rama is his son-in-law. He has solemnized marriage again. His daughter and Rama had come home and had taken 1 kg silver. He had given silver as his daughter was wearing ornaments of Rama. On the next day, Rama had come on knowing about it. Silver was given in front of Panch and in writing. A compromise was also written in which it was stated that Rama would marry again and would leave his daughter. He got his daughter released from jail. He enquired about the incident from his daughter. His daughter was in the house of her mausi since 8 days before the incident. She was to stay there till marriage. His wife had gone in the wedding after 10 days. His daughter was enticed away by Assu. Assu and victim 'X' used to talk to each other since they had a relationship as brother and sister. Assu is not his relative. Assu and Kamla live nearby in different house but the exit was same and the courtyard was different. He states that it is incorrect to state that he forcibly wanted Assu to marry his daughter and since Assu was not ready he prepared false papers and lodged the present report. He further states that it is incorrect that at the time of incident, his daughter was aged about more than 20 years.
17. PW-5 S.D. Singh is the Investigating Officer of the matter who took up the investigation from Bachan Singh from 18.05.1987. He states that he searched for accused Assu but he could not be traced. On 18.08.1987 a radiogram was received at Police Station Talbehat informing that the victim 'X' along with one accused Harpal has been arrested in a police encounter in a previous incident being Case Crime No. 87 of 1987 which was lodged at Police Station Baar. On the said information he went to record the statement of victim 'X' at Police Station Baar but in the meantime she had proceeded for Lalitpur. He then recorded her statement on 10.07.1987 when she was present in court of CJM. The further investigation in the matter was done by Sri T.P. Banaudha.
In his cross examination, he states that on getting information from Police Station Baar that lady has been sent for remand to Lalitpur. He did not go there since he had other work also. On the next day since there were other important work he did not record her statement. On 10.08.1987 when she went to the court he recorded her statement while being in police custody. He did not write the time of her interrogation in the case diary. He did not take permission of the CJM for her interrogation. He states that it is incorrect that he did not interrogate the victim 'X'. Further he states that it is incorrect that he is stating false that he recorded her statement outside the court. He did not ask victim 'X' about her age since the doctor would give the estimation of her age and her father had already mentioned her age. He did not mention the estimation of age of victim 'X' in the case diary. victim 'X' did not give any such statement that she was in the house of her mausi and Asha Ram came there and told her that her mother is calling her and then she went with him. He did not see the place of occurrence. The victim 'X' did not tell him that Assu committed rape upon her. He states that it is incorrect that he is giving a false statement.
18. PW-6 Smt. Bhaggo is the mausi of the victim 'X'. She states that victim 'X' who is the daughter of her sister had come to her house for work in the marriage. At about 06:00 pm Assu came there and was sitting in her courtyard and victim 'X' was standing there. He was talking to her. She came out with milk and gave it to the girl and went away to give fodder to the animal. When she came out she did not find victim 'X' and Assu there. She searched her in the neighbourhood but they could not be traced. She inquired about them from the neighbours but they did not tell anything. She searched them in the village but they could not be traced. Villagers told her that they have not seen her. Rajau saw Assu going with victim 'X'. Her father was informed in the morning but he did not come.
In his cross examination, she states that she does not know as to whether Assu and victim 'X' used to talk with each other earlier also. She does not know whether the victim 'X' was wearing jewellery or not. No male member was in her house and thus she did not tell anyone as she did not tell anyone of the locality that Assu had taken away victim X. She did not see the victim 'X' going away. She was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on the day of the incident. She does not know whether Assu gave biscuits to the children in her house on the saying of children. The Investigating Officer has written it in her statement. The house of victim 'X' is at some distance from her village. Her daughter and Rajau did not talk amongst themselves as she has come to give her statement and thus she is thinking that she has seen the incident. Rajau is a witness and thus she states that she has seen the incident. No one knew that the victim 'X' has eloped. She, Rajau and her daughter knew it from before. She did not tell victim 'X' of the statement she has to give. She was living with her mother. She cannot tell whether parents of victim 'X' wanted her to get married. No persons of her locality had seen victim 'X' and Assu going away. She states that it is incorrect that the father of victim 'X' wanted to forcibly marry Assu with her and since he had refused it he with the help of police has instituted the present false case. She states that it is incorrect that Assu did not entice away victim 'X' from her house.
19. Tribhuwan Prasad Banaudha PW-7 is the third Investigating Officer who took up the investigation from S.D. Singh PW-5 from 24.12.1987. He interrogated accused Chandan Singh and Asha Ram @ Assu when they were in jail. On 20.01.1988 he sent victim 'X' for medical examination. On 29.01.1988 he recorded the statement of Babu Lal the scribe of the FIR and witness Punti Lal and then on 29.01.1988 filed a charge sheet against accused Chandan Singh and Asha Ram, the same is Exb: Ka-6 to the records.
In his cross examination, he states that he interrogated victim 'X' on 20.01.1988. He did not write her statement in the case diary since her statement was already written. Victim 'X' and her father had told him that she never went to her matrimonial house. Since the previous Investigating Officer had not get medical examination he sent her for medical examination. He states that it is incorrect that he did not interrogate the accused and has done the entire work at police station itself on his own and filed a false charge sheet.
20. PW-8 Rajau is an alleged eye witness of the incident. He states that on the day of incident he was coming to his house and when he reached the house of Aveer Singh he saw victim 'X' and accused Assu @ Asha Ram going together. He inqured from victim 'X' as to where she is going on which she stated that she is going to house of her mausi. He then went to his house. Later, he came to know that victim 'X' is not in the village. When her mausi Bhaggo came to him then he told her that victim 'X' and Asha Ram were going together. They then searched for them in the village but they could not be traced.
In his cross examination, he states that that the mausi of victim 'X' lives in the same village. victim 'X' and Assu live separately. Victim 'X' and Assu previously used to live together and they had a relationship as brother and sister. When he saw them it was about slightly dark at that time. He did not suspect anything wrong. He did not ever had suspicion that Assu had enticed away victim 'X'. When Bhaggo asked him he told her that he had seen victim 'X' going with Assu. He states that it is incorrect that victim 'X' and her father have given false statements. victim 'X' and her father have given false statements on the saying of Bhaggo.
21. PW-9 Bachan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the matter after lodging of the FIR on 10.02.1987. He went to the place of occurrence where he interrogated Smt. Bhaggo, Rajau and other persons. He prepared the site plan of the incident which is Exb: Ka-7 to the records. On 11.02.1987 he searched for victim 'X' and the accused but they could not be traced. He was then transferred.
In his cross examination, he states that Smt. Bhaggo had told him about the victim 'X' coming to her house. Smt. Bhaggo had told him of 09.02.1987 at 06:00 pm as the date and time of occurrence. She had told him that biscuit and toffee was given to the children and victim 'X' by Asha Ram. He did not know that the distance of the house of the victim from the place of occurrence. Both the houses are at a distance about 100 yards and in between there is abadi. There are other houses and the people were not interrogated. He interrogated the informant. The accused Asha Ram was residing in the same village in the house of his cousin brother since last 2-3 years. Age of the victim was told about 17 years. He states that it is incorrect that he with Harpe have falsely instituted the present case.
22. In defence Aveer Singh DW-1 was produced who stated that he knows Asha Ram. He also knows Harpe and others who are his cousin brothers. victim 'X' is the daughter of Harpe who was married with Rama of Basatguwan. Rama did not keep victim 'X' since she was of bad character. Rama had deserted victim 'X' around three years earlier. Asha Ram was living in the house of Masalti in his village and used to do his farming. When victim 'X' was deserted by her husband then Harpe, Masalti and Bhaggo forcibly wanted Asha Ram to marry her. Asha Ram had refused it since she was of a bad character.
23. DW 2 Bhan Singh was the Station House Officer, Police Station Baar. He states that on 07.08.1987, the victim 'X' was arrested with Harpal and he had sent her for remand on 08.08.1987 to Court. Victim 'X' did not tell him that Chandan Singh or any other person had committed rape upon her and neither did he ask her about it. On 08.08.1987 he had arrested her and lodged her in jail of which a GD was prepared. On 08.08.1987 in the case diary, SD Singh Sub-Inspector, P.S. Talbehat was not shown to have come and neither is there any reference of any police of the said police station coming. The GD of case under Section 307 IPC is being filed by him which is being marked as Exb: Kha-1 to the records.
24. The trial court thus finding the evidence to be truthful and beyond reasonable doubt convicted the accused appellants as above. Thus the present appeal has been filed before this Court.
25. Heard Sri Pushpraj Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and records have been perused. The trial court records which are tagged with the present file have also been perused.
26. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is as under:
(i) The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(ii) The victim 'X' went away with accused Asha Ram @ Assu as has been stated by PW-6 Smt. Bhaggo and PW-8 Rajau Singh who is an eye witness of their going away.
(iii) The victim 'X' went with Assu @ Asha Ram on 09.02.1987. She was then arrested on 08.08.1987 with Harpal in a police encounter.
(iv) The story of the prosecution is that at the time of their arrest accused Chandan and Nanhe Rajju had run away.
(v) The victim 'X' although has stated of accused appellants committing rape upon her but the said story is totally false and incorrect and has been stated by her in Court for the first time.
(vi) The victim 'X' is a married woman and was deserted by her husband after entering into a compromise.
(vii) She was an accused in a case under Section 307 IPC with Assu @ Asha Ram. She was arrested in the said case along with Harpal and then remanded to custody.
(viii) The facts of the case thus show that she went with Assu @ Asha Ram and had absconded in a case under Section 307 IPC and was subsequently arrested in a police encounter after about six months with Harpal.
(ix) Victim 'X' is not a reliable witness inasmuch as she has tried to cook up a case to defend herself since she was an accused under Section 307 IPC and was absconding and was subsequently arrested in a police encounter from the jungle.
(x) The role of the appellant Chandan Singh in the present matter is totally negligible inasmuch as he was not the person to have taken away the victim 'X' from the house and also that he was not involved in the previous case under Section 307 IPC. It is only the prosecution case that the victim 'X' was in the jungle with him and other accused and from the statement of victim 'X', he and Nanhe Rajju had committed rape upon her in the jungle.
(xi) Nanhe Rajju is a name which has surfaced in the matter but he has neither been arrested nor made as an accused nor there is anything further in the matter to show as to who the said person is. The implication thus of the appellant in the present matter is totally false and concocted and without credible evidence.
(xii) It is a fit case where the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt and the present appeal be thus allowed.
27. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal and submitted as under:
(i) The victim 'X' has named the accused appellant Chandan Singh and stated that he along with other persons had detained her in the jungle and he and Nanhe Rajju had committed rape upon her.
(ii) The victim 'X' was recovered from the jungle in a police encounter and thus the story of her being kidnapped and detained in the jungle is true.
(iii) The trial court finding the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt convicted the accused appellant as above and thus the present appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
28. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the appellant is not named in the FIR. His implication in the matter has surfaced during investigation. The victim 'X' states of Assu @ Asha Ram leaving her in the jungle with the appellant Chandan Singh and other persons and going away. She states of the appellant and Nanhe Rajju committing rape upon her. The victim 'X' was an accused in a case under Section 307 IPC along with co-accused Assu @ Asha Ram. Both the persons had left the house and went away. She was living in jungle for about six months from where she along with one Harpal who is not an accused in the present matter. The present surviving appellant Chandan Singh is stated to have run away at that time. He was not arrested on the spot. The evidence regarding implication of the appellant does not transpire confidence. The appellant thus deserves to be extended benefit of doubt.
29. This Court thus while extending benefit of doubt to the appellant no.2/Chandan Singh sets aside his conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court. The appeal is allowed.
30. The judgment and order dated 02.12.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Lalitpur is set aside. The appellant Chandan Singh is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.
31. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
32. Office to communicate this order to the concerned trial court within two weeks for necessary information. The trial courts records be also returned back with it.
(Samit Gopal,J.) May 11, 2026 M.Arif