STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMAD NAIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave, and it presents some unusual features. The short facts are these. The Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi in the State of Uttar Pradesh tried Zafar Ali Khan and three other persons on charges under Ss. 452 and 307 read with S. 34,Indian Penal Code. The case against the aforesaid accused persons started on a first information report lodged at a police station called Shahabad, purporting to have been so lodged at about 3.30 a.m. by one Farasat Ali Khan on the night between the 7th and 8th November, 1958. The case was investigated by one Mohammad Naim who was then the Station Officer of Shahabad police station. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons though he found, on the evidence given in the case, that it was more probable that the first information was lodged at the police station at about 7 or 8 a.m. rather than at 3.30. a.m. From the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judges there was an appeal to the High Court at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). This appeal was heard by Mulla, J. He found that Mohammad Naim had dressed up a totally unbelievable case which destroyed the evidentiary value of the statements of Farasat Ali and his wife. Ummati Begum, two of principal witnesses for the prosecution. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences of the four appellants before him. The learned Judge further observed in his judgment:

(2.) In pursuance of the direction given by the learned Judge, Mohammad Naim was given a notice to show cause why a complaint for an offence under S. 195 Indian Penal Code should not be made against him for fabricating the first information report in respect of the time at which it was said to have been lodged. Mohammad Naim appeared before the learned Judged and threw himself at the mercy of the court and asked for forgiveness. The learned Judge dealt with the matter in Cr. Misc. Case No. 87 of 1961. He accepted the apology of Mohammad Naim, but said that he did so very hesitatingly. In the course of his order accepting the apology of Mohammad Naim be made certain observations, We may now quote those observations:

(3.) The State of Uttar Pradesh felt aggrieved by some of the aforesaid observations and made an application under S. 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure for expunging them. The observations in respect of which the State of Uttar Pradesh felt aggrieved were grouped ,under heads (a), (b) and (c) in paragraph 4 of the petition which we may now set out here: