STATE OF U P Vs. ROOP NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Verma, J. This is a revision against the judgment of Sri Sanwal Singh, Special Judge, Azamgarh dated 2. 2. 91 allowing the appeal against the order of Sri Devendra Chaudhary, Collector Azamgarh dated 13. 12. 90 and making certain observations about his lack of knowledge with regard to the format of a judgment and omission on his part to discuss the evidence of the respondent adduced before him.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment of the Collector, Azamgarh and also the judgment of Sri Sanwal Singh, Special Judge, Azamgarh, dated 2. 2. 91. The Special Judge has observed that the Collector did not draw legitimate inferences from the facts that a bill of the respondent with regard to the cemment purchased by the police from him remained pending and that the brother of the respondent admittedly had made certain accusations against the police and they were pending enquiry and to justify confiscation the police had vaguely alleged that the respondent had been indulging in illicit trade with the help of the Motor Cycle in question from a long time although the same had been acquired by the respondent only some time before the alleged seizure. The findings arrived at by the Special Judge could not be said to he unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence on record, and as such do not warrant any interference. So far as certain observations of the Special Judge are concerned all that could be said is that they should have been more politely worded but there is no good reason to direct expunction of any portion of the judgment. The result is that the revision fails and is summarily dismissed. Revision dismissed. .