Mohd. Anwar vs State Of U.P. on 23 January, 2017

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Anwar vs State Of U.P. on 23 January, 2017

[Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. ] By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 05.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.1493 of 2003, arising out of case crime no.223 of 2002 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 140 IPC, 14 Foreigners Act, 3 and 6 Official Secrets Act, 12 Passport Act and in Sessions Trial No.716 of 2004 arising out of case crime no.224 of 2002 under section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the accused appellant has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates six months' additional rigorous imprisonment under section 14 Foreigners Act, life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates one year's additional rigorous imprisonment under section 467 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates one year additional rigorous imprisonment under section 468 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates six month's additional rigorous imprisonment under section 471 IPC, life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.10,000/-, and default stipulates one year additional rigorous imprisonment under section 472 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates six month's additional rigorous imprisonment under section 473 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, and default stipulates six months' additional rigorous imprisonment under section 474 IPC, three months rigorous imprisonment under section 140 IPC, fourteen years rigorous imprisonment under section 3 Official Secrets Act, three years rigorous imprisonment under section 6 Official Secrets Act, five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.10,000/-, and default stipulates one year additional rigorous imprisonment under section 12 Passport Act and two years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/- and default stipulates six months' additional imprisonment under section 25 Arms Act. Sentences to run concurrently.

Heard Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena, Smt. Manju Thakur learned AGAs, Sri Hasan Shaukat Abidi brief holder for the State and also perused the record.

Gravamen of charge has its seed in the first information report lodged by Rajesh Dwivedi, Circle Officer, Baburpurwa, Kanpur Nagar, at Crime Nos.223 of 2002 and 224 of 2002 at 3:30 a.m. on 19.05.2002 at Police Station Babupurwa whereby fact of arrest of accused Mohd. Anwar, resident of Begumpurwa, coupled with recovery of incriminating document/material was intimated and the first information report was lodged against him.

As per contents of the arrest memo/recovery memo, on 18.05.2002, the informant Rajesh Dwivedi, Circle Officer, region Babupurwa received tip off information that the accused Mohd. Anwar is spying for Pakistan against India and is passing on secret information to Pakistan which act is a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India. On this information, Rajesh Dwivedi, Circle Officer called the other police personnel of various police stations for conducting raid and three separate police parties were constituted for this purpose. The first police party was led by Ravi Kant Parashar, SHO Babupurwa. Second police party was led by V.S. Garvyal, SHO Kalyanpur and the third police party was led by the informant Rajesh Dwivedi, Circle Officer himself. They raided house of the accused-appellant at Babupurwa around 3:30 p.m. but no one was present in the house. Thereafter, several other places were searched and raid was conducted but whereabouts of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar could not be known. Thereafter, in the night intervening 18/19.05.2002 again, tip off information was received by the policy party to the effect that the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar will receive some secret documents at central C.O.D. ground and he is present over there. It was around 12:30 a.m. in the night when the police party raided the place at C.O.D. ground where one person with a bag and another person who was giving an envelope to him, were seen whereupon in the torch light, the police party nabbed one of them. One person took out countrymade gun from his bag, in the meanwhile another person took to his heels and fled away. He was chased by the police personnel but to no avail. However, one person with bag and countrymade gun was arrested. On inquiry being made, he told his name Mohd. Anwar son of Mohd. Din, resident of 131/4A, Begumpurwa, Police Station Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar. The police party recovered countrymade gun 315 bore, one live cartridge entangled in its nozzle, two cartridges, one military uniform, shoes, belt and pant from bag, one map of C.O.D. Apart from above, a number of other things were also recovered. Passport bearing no.505638 dated 06.07.1992 issued in the name of Badruddin by District Raibareilly with affixed photograph of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar was recovered. One identity card in the name of M. Shikhawat with affixed photograph of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar was also recovered which was issued on 21.04.1990 from Amritsar. On inquiry being made, the arrested accused Mohd. Anwar told that he is living in India by using various names as Badruddin, M. Shikhawat, P. Ramraj and his real name is Ikaramuddin son of Gayasuddin, resident of House No.1517, near Islamia Boys School, Sambriyal, Tehsil Isaka, District Syalkot, Pakistan. He confessed to have been spying for Pakistan by collecting secret military information and sending it to Pakistan. He has told name of person who absconded as Mohd. Yunus.

Accused appellant Mohd. Anwar has further informed that some other materials have been kept by him in his house at Begumpurwa about which recovery can be made from his house whereupon the police party went to his house after preparing memo of the recovered material i.e. aforesaid countrymade gun, cartridges and documents etc. The police party also recovered Rs.3550/- from possession of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar. He was taken to his house at Begumpurwa from where certain incriminating material /document were recovered. Few of them deserve mention. Passport No.B2120106 issued from Lucknow on 25.09.2000 in the name of Mumtaz Begum wife of Mohd. Anwar which was valid up to 24.09.2010. One mobile cell phone without SIM card, two video cassettes, eight computer floppy, one identity card in the name of Nayak M. Shikhwat with affixed photograph of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar, one more identity card in the name of Nayak P. Ramraj with affixed photograph of accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar, one railway voucher no.4427027 in the name of Constable N. Madan Singh, one negative photograph, one motor vehicle registration form, one power of attorney, one ticket for Ghaziabad, one ration card, one transfer certificate issued by Geeta Gyan Mandir, Junior High School, Chandari Kanpur, one slip of telephone numbers, one cash memo etc. were recovered from house/possession of the accused-appellant who told that he used to send these materials as secret information to Pakistan. The recovered material were sealed and the recovery memo was completed.

On the basis of aforesaid recovery, the accused-appellant was arrested under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 124A, 140, 473, 474, 120 IPC and 3 and 9 Official Secret Act, 1923, 3/12 Indian Passport Act, 1967, 14 Foreigners Act, 25 Arms Act. A memo of arrest/recovery was prepared at the instance of the informant, which is Ext. Ka-1 and the same formed core information of above two case crime numbers.

Contents of this information were noted in the Check FIR at Case Crime No.223 of 2002 under aforesaid sections of IPC and the various Acts and Case Crime No.224 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act against the accused-appellant. Check FIR was noted by HCP Badan Singh PW-4 who proved it as Ext. Ka-2. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR, case was registered against the accused-appellant at Serial No.4 of the concerned general diary on 19.05.2002 at 3:30 a.m. at Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar. General diary entry is Ext. Ka-3. After lodging of the first information report, the accused-appellant was lodged in the police lock up.

The investigation of this case was entrusted to Rajendra Prasad Singh PW-11 who recorded statement of a number of witnesses and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence Ext. Ka-13. He also prepared site plan of house of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar Ext. Ka-14. During course of investigation, he recorded statement of a number of witnesses on 21.05.2002, 22.05.2002 and 24.05.2002. The Investigating Officer effected recovery of some papers containing e-mail messages from house of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar on 30.05.2002 at 2:40 p.m. and 3:05 p.m. and prepared memo of the same on the spot. Recovery memo is Ext. Ka-6. E-mail messages/materials recovered from possession of the accused-appellant were sent to Mumbai for confirmation and its confirmation report was obtained which was perused by the Investigating Officer.

During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW-11) recorded statement of SHO Chankradhar Gaur, PW-3 on 04.06.2002, besides he also recorded statement of number of other witnesses and perused record and filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant at Case Crime No.224 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act on 28.06.2002, which is Ext. Ka-15. Sanction for the prosecution was also obtained from District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on 14.07.2002 which has been proved as Ext. Ka-16. The Investigating Officer also completed investigation in the aforesaid Case Crime No.223 of 2002 and charge sheet dated 13.08.2002 was filed against the accused-appellant which is Ext. Ka-17. He also obtained requisite sanction from the State Government as well as the Central Government for launching prosecution against the accused-appellant.

As a sequel to it, the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar. Two sessions trials were numbered; one 1493 of 2003 concerning Case Crime No.223 of 2002 under various sections of IPC, Official Secrets Act, 1923, Passport Act and Foreigners Act and the other concerning Case Crime No.224 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act.

The trial Judge after hearing the prosecution and the accused on point of charge was satisfied prima facie with case against the accused-appellant, therefore, framed charges under various sections of IPC and the aforesaid Acts. Charges were read over and explained to the accused who denied the charges and opted for trial.

In turn the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony whereupon the prosecution produced in all 14 witnesses. Brief description of whom is as herein under:

Rajesh Dwivedi PW-1, Dy. S.P. is the informant. He has lodged the information (report) Ext. Ka-1 and has initially arrested the accused-appellant and recovered incriminating material from him in the night intervening of 18/19.05.2002 around 12:30 a.m. and has proved the process before the trial court. Mata Prasad Salonia PW-2 has proved fact of arrest of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar and recovery made from him at the time of his arrest by PW-1. He was one of the members of the raiding party. Chandradhar Gaur PW-3 was also one of the members of the raiding party and he has proved process of arrest of the accused appellant and recovery made from him before the trial court. HCP Badan Singh PW-4 has proved relevant entries made in the concerned Check FIR and GD as Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3, respectively. S.I. Shiv Dayal Singh PW-5 has conducted proceedings concerning the arrest of another accused Saleem which need not be taken into consideration for the purpose of this appeal. Krishna Kumar Mishra PW-6, Manager, Geeta Gyan Mandir Balika Junior High School Chandari, Kanpur Nagar. He has testified to fact that name of Mohd. Anwar does not figure at Serial No.1476 of the scholar register. Ravi Kant Parashar PW-7 was also one of the members of police raiding party and he has proved fact of arrest of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar and recovery made from him. S.I. Pratap Singh PW-8 was also one of the members of the police raiding party, who conducted search in the house of the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar on 30.05.2002 and recovered some incriminating e-mails from his house. Recovery memo of the same was prepared on the spot which is in the handwriting of this witness (PW-8). Davir Ahmad, Udru Translator PW-9 has translated Urdu version in Hindi language and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-33. Anil Kumar Jain PW-10 has testified on fact concerning another accused Saleem and has proved that process which testimony need not be taken into consideration for disposal of this appeal. Rajendra Prasad Singh PW-11 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has detailed the various steps, he took for completing the investigation and has proved fact of filing of charge sheets against the accused-appellant in this case. V.R. Dhiman PW-12 has proved papers Ext. Ka-19 and Ext. Ka-20 meant for according sanction for prosecution and he was under Secretary to the Government of India. Barati Lal PW-13 is the Joint Secretary in the Home Department and has proved Ext. Ka-21 which is relevant document according sanction for prosecution at Case Crime No.223 of 2002. Jyoti Diplani PW-14 has proved fact that she is acquainted with the handwriting of the then Company Secretary of Rediff. Com India, Ltd. Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate, L.J. Road No.1, Mahim West, Mumbai and has proved her signature on letter/report-Ext. Ka-22.

Except as above, no other evidence, whatsoever, was adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused-appellant has claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that he runs vegetable shop. One military officer of Captain rank took vegetables on credit from him. On demand of payment, he did not make payment instead he had threatened to see him and he (military officer) in collusion with the police falsely roped in, him in this case.

Defence did not lead any evidence.

The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties on merit and considering the evidence on record and appraisal of facts, recorded verdict of conviction and awarded aforesaid sentence vide judgment and order dated 05.05.2006.

Consequently this appeal.

It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the accused-appellant that in this case, conspiracy was hatched by some military officer in collusion with the police and after preparation of some worthless papers, fake arrest and recovery was made against the accused-appellant, whereas, fact of recovery being made from the accused-appellant is flatly denied. Various charges made against the accused-appellant with specific allegations that the accused-appellant is a Pakistani national/citizen and he secretly obtained military information and sent it to Pakistan and tried to wage war against the Government of India and is acting against sovereignty and integrity of India, has not been proved even in the least what to say beyond reasonable doubt.

It was bounden duty of the prosecution to have come out with positive evidence of fruitful nature which could have specifically established facts that the accused-appellant is involved in spying activities and is passing on secret military information to Pakistan. There is no link evidence as to who sent e-mail messages and who received these e-mail messages. The hard disc and floppy concerning e-mail messages have also not been brought on record. There is no proof that the accused-appellant ever acted against sovereignty and integrity of India or he ever used any fake passport for boarding. No complaint, whatsoever, has ever been made by passport department against him that he ever tried to obtain fake passport. The fact is that all these irrelevant papers were managed by the police in order to falsely implicate the accused-appellant in this case.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant next contended that there is no public independent witness to the fact of arrest of the accused-appellant and recovery made from him in the night intervening 18/19.05.2002 at 12:30 a.m. Recovery memo prepared at the place of arrest (C.O.D. ground) was deliberately not completed for the reasons best known to the informant and the same was purposely utilized for recovery of fake papers from the house of the accused-appellant and recovery memo was illegally completed by the informant in whimsical manner not supported by any independent public witness at his house. Recovery memo dated 19.05.2002 Ext. Ka-1 has not been duly proved and the same is not admissible in the eye of law.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has further contended that there is no single testimony proving allegations of the prosecution except bald statement of the police officers whose only aim was to avail conviction of the accused-appellant. Not a single public witness has come forward to support the fact of recovery and charges against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant is a poor, helpless man and earns his livelihood by selling vegetables and he could not know the might of military officer who had grudge against him and he found it opportune moment to give him a lesson for demanding payment of money for supply of vegetables sold to the military officer.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant next contended that the trial court unmindful of the law applicable and the facts and circumstances of the case erroneously applied law against the accused-appellant and recorded illegal conviction against him which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Learned AGA while retorting to aforesaid arguments has submitted that charges against the accused-appellant are very grave and that relates to sedition and waging war against the Government of India which act is a direct threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the entire nation. The accused-appellant has been found guilty of passing on secret military information over to Pakistan after collecting it in India. There is a long list of e-mails sent to Pakistan which on the face speak of real intention of the accused-appellant that he was involved in passing on secret information over to Pakistan from India. Various documents proved before the trial court speak and establish abundantly fact of culpability. Fact is that the public witnesses were tried to be availed to become part of the proceedings but this being a case of different nature, no one from public was prepared to be a witness to the proceeding. But that alone would not hit at the root of the prosecution case. Charges framed have been proved by testimony on record and the trial court has evaluated testimony in its true spirit, and after being satisfied with creditworthiness of the prosecution witnesses and case, found the charges proved against the accused-appellant and awarded sentence against him. There is no merit in this appeal.

We have also considered the rival submissions and claim.

Moot point that arises for determination of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution was successful in establishing charges against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

In this case, the prosecution was launched against the accused-appellant after his arrest was effectuated on 18.05.2002 in the night intervening 18/19.05.2002 around 12:30 a.m. Obviously, there was no independent public witness. However, arrest of the accused-appellant was effectuated over C.O.D. ground which is a ground belonging to the military department. Here some cautious approach could have been easily adopted and service of independent military personal would have been secured. But the entire arrest/recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 and the first information report is silent on this particular aspect that when the police raiding party was unable to secure attendance of any independent witness then why was presence of some military personnel not explored because C.O.D. ground basically belongs to military department and presence of military personnel would have been an easy task. May be, that the police personnel forgot to secure presence of such military personnel but point is that arrest/recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 was not properly prepared on the spot at 12:30 a.m., because at the time of arrest of the accused-appellant, countrymade gun along with cartridges and one map qua C.O.D. area were recovered and sealed in a bag but recovery memo was not signed by anyone and the same was kept in abeyance in anticipation that police party wished to make further recovery of incriminating article from the house of the accused-appellant at Begumpurwa which recovery at Begumpurwa was allegedly made around 2:00 a.m. in the aforesaid intervening night. Thus incomplete arrest/recovery memo was completed at the house of accused, whereas, it was kept incomplete after effectuating arrest of the accused-appellant previously (at 12:30 a.m.) and thereafter signatures of the police personnel were obtained on it. In the wake of above, it is obvious that there was no need for the raiding party to have kept such recovery memo incomplete with them which was completed at another place, instead of the place of first instance where the accused-appellant Mohd. Anwar was initially arrested and recovery was made from him on C.O.D. ground.

Regarding non-availability of independent public witness, it is noticeable from perusal of recovery memo Ext. Ka-6 that recovery was also made by the Investigating Officer on 30.05.2002 from house of the accused-appellant at Begumpurwa around 3:05 p.m. The house of the accused is admittedly located in a populated locality at Kanpur Nagar, but on point of securing presence of independent public witness, this recovery memo contains some evasive description that the accused-appellant being a spy, no person from the public was prepared to stand witness to fact of recovery and one after another disappeared from the scene. However, it is obvious that huge police force conducted search operation in the house of the accused-appellant on 30.05.2002 in the afternoon and recovery was completed at 3:05 p.m. but the police party failed to even ask names of the persons from public who refused to stand witness to fact of recovery.

Pratap Singh PW-8, on page 68 of the paper-book, in his cross examination testified that no person from public told his name, therefore, he cannot tell name of any of such public persons who were was asked by the police party to stand witness to fact of recovery. The point is that police personnel will always be deemed to be acquainted with the procedure and knowing the law on this point that a person who refuses to be witness may be dealt with in accordance with law by the police for his non-cooperation in the proceedings initiated by the police personnel and names of certain persons along with their addresses could have been well managed and obtained who refused to be witness but names of such persons have not been even asked by the police, is quite surprising. Therefore, recovery memo Ext. Ka-6 also becomes dubious in absence of any independent public witness and the same also does not give any thrust or credence to the prosecution story.

After careful consideration of the entire testimony on record, we could not discover even an iota of testimony on fact that the accused-appellant is a Pakistani national and there is no corroboration of his address as such. E-mail messages recovered have not been properly proved to have been sent by the accused-appellant.

Jyoti Diplani PW-14 has testified about some letter/report regarding e-mail messages which were sent by some other officer of the Company say- Secretary of Rediff. Com India, Ltd. Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate, L.J. Road No.1, Mahim West, Mumbai and has proved letter and report as Ext. Ka-22 and Ext. Ka-23, respectively. E-mails print out were also proved by this witness (PW-14) and were sent to the police which fact finds mention on record from Ext. Ka-24 to Ext. Ka-45. On her cross examination on page 82 of the paper-book, she has categorically stated that e-mail (Alkhan) 79 @ yahoo. com U.K. was not functional when her testimony was recorded. She cannot say when this e-mail was closed and she is unable to tell as to when e-mailing was done last time and she cannot say as to when e-mail print out was taken out, because this was done only by her previous officer (of the Company). Lastly, she has stated that information, she has furnished, has originated from original text system which cannot be brought (before the Court). She cannot bring it before the Court. She has also stated in her cross examination that she has not brought with her any authority letter issued by the Company although she has denied suggestion that she is not an employee of Rediff. com Company India Ltd.

Thus testimony of PW-14 would have furnished some credence to the prosecution story. But it is obvious from perusal of cross examination of PW-14 that e-mail messages have not been properly linked to have been, in fact, sent by the accused-appellant himself, which has been acted upon by its addressee. There is no attendant circumstances even which may show or establish fact that the accused-appellant ever indulged in any extraneous activity which may pose threat to the sovereignty and integrity of our country.

The entire evidence collected in its varied form springing right from the stage of the informant up to the Investigating Office and the other police personnel involved in the process, lacks credence and coherence on the ground that there is no independent corroboration of such haphazardly created testimony. Merely because certain papers were allegedly recovered from possession of the accused do not confer legality on such recovery memos (Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-6) because we, on careful scrutiny of these recovery memos, come to conclusion that these recovery memos (Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-6) on the whole become dubious and as such not admissible in evidence. There is no link evidence emerging from any other source which may give thrust to some apprehension to the extent that the accused-appellant was indulging in spying for Pakistan.

In so far as recovery of paper containing e-mail messages is concerned, it is obvious that it is electronic information. It has got to be proved according to the specific procedure prescribed in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That way, we can contemplate provisions of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act which prescribes a particular procedure for proving such electronic information to be admissible as such. Authority from whom electronic information is to be confirmed must authenticate such information so as to give it legal teeth. Here we may count that procedure prescribed under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 has not been complied with by the prosecution in letter and spirit. Therefore, for that reason also, so-called electronic paper containing e-mail messages becomes insignificant and not admissible as such.

We have carefully scanned the entire testimony whereupon we come across fact that no independent public witness was availed for corroborating vital facts alleged against the accused-appellant.

We also take notice of fact that whatever information has been obtained by the police has its source in confession of the accused himself. Law is well settled that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against that person (accused of an offence). Such confession becomes inadmissible and is no evidence in the eye of law. We may observe that confession made to a police officer by an accused while in police custody cannot be basis of conviction. Such confession is rightly hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and attendant circumstances as well as testimony on record, statement of accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the magnitude that he used to run shop for vegetable near military canteen and some military officer used to purchase vegetables from him, but on demand of payment, military officer threatened him of dire consequence - appears to be quite reasonable explanation, because act of spying attributed against the accused-appellant remains bald allegation in the absence of clinching and consistent evidence and supportive material on record.

It appears that the trial Judge became extra zealous and out of enthusiasm straightway believed correct each and every papers produced by the police without looking into its veracity and legality and based its judgment of conviction more on conjecture and surmises than on material on record. Consequently, conviction recorded against the accused-appellant under various sections of IPC and the other Acts, as above, is vitiated in the eye of law.

Thus, the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court is on the face erroneous and perverse and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as such the prosecution has not been able to prove its charges beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, judgment and order of conviction dated 05.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.1493 of 2003, arising out of case crime no.223 of 2002 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 140 IPC, 14 Foreigners Act, 3 and 6 Official Secrets Act, 12 Passport Act and in Sessions Trial No.716 of 2004 arising out of case crime no.224 of 2002 under section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, is hereby set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted of aforesaid charges under aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and other Acts (as above). Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed.

In this case, the accused-appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case after ensuring compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Let a copy of this judgment/order be certified to the court concerned for necessary informant and follow up action.

Dt. 23.01.2017 rkg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court