JOKHAI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jealously, malice and village rivalry has made petitioner, a freedom fighter, run from pillar to post for nearly nine years facing as many as three enquiries one by District Magistrate and two by Commissioner and one criminal prosecution to save his political pension. In 1932 petitioner, who is a Harijan by caste, and his father participated in what was known as 'Lagaan Bindi (a refusal to pay land revenue) movement for which petitioner was arrested and sentenced to six months R. f. and remain in jail from 20th April 1912 to 11th Oct., 1932. In 1942 he was again arrested for participating in quit India movement and was in jail from 20th Nov., 1942 to 18th Jan., 1943. In 1966 the governor was pleased to, sanction to petitioner under his inherent power, a life pension of Rs. 30.00 per month. It was enhanced in 1969 and 1971. In 1972 the U. P. Government issued Notification No 4376 dated 25th Feb., 1972 and framed rules known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 In 1973 Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh the then Member of Parliament recommended to Sri K. C. Pant, the then State Home Minister that petitioner was a freedom fighter who had suffered during freedom movement, therefore, political pension may be paid to him. Aid petitioner was allowed pension from Central Government also.

(2.) Things went on smoothly till 1976 when one Chhotey Lal, opposite party No. 2 was bound down under Sec. 107/116, Crimial P.C. This prompted him to file complaint against petitioner alleging that petitioner was not entitled to get pension from State Government. Is set in motion the process of harassment for petitioner which has continued for at coast nine years. Chhotey Lal left no stone unturned to victimise petitioner by making him run from one office to another and even to this Court and that also twice. His audacity has been so tenacious that he even filed counter-affidavit, in this Court, engaged a counsel and did all that was possible to see that petitioner was prevented from obtaining any relief. But what is surprising is not the conduct of opposite party as it is not unusual in our society, but re-opening of proceedings by State Government. On first complaint State Government got enquiry made from District Magistrate Allahabad, who submitted his report in September. 1976 in favour of petitioner. It was pointed out that the complaint was actuated with eremite due to binding down of Chhotey Lal. When this report reached State Government the Honble Minister for Political Pension passed an order on 2nd Dec., 1977 that inquiry has been made from jail. And the District Magistrate Allahabad may be informed immediately that political pension of petitioner may not be stopped. But Chhotey Lal did not take it lying down He approached the District Magistrate an 'got a complaint filed under Sec. 420, I.P.C. How did he succeed in it when just live months earlier a report was submitted to same authority in favour of petitioner is not clear. The petitioner, however, appears to have approached State Government which directed District Magistrate to stay and not proceed with the complaint It further appears to have directed Commissioner to make inquiry. He again submitted a report in Sept., 1978 in favour of petitioner. It was mentioned that S.D M had earlier, on inquiry, found that complaint against petitioner was incorrect and he was political sufferer. It was also pointed out that from perusal of records it was clear that members of dissolved Assembly and Council had given certificates that petitioner was political sufferer and the Superintendent Jail had informed that Jokhai Lal had been in jail in 1942. He, therefore, was of opinion that petitioner was political sufferer and pension had not been obtained by him by practising any fraud. This resulted in order dated 16th February. 1979 intimating the District Magistrate Allahabad that the Government had taken a decision that political pension shall be continued to be paid to petitioner as before. Undaunted by his failure the opposite party approached Government again and succeeded in getting fresh inquiry started against petitioner in 1979 In May 1980 petitioner received a notice from State Government that on complaint received an inquiry was got made from Commissioner which indicated that petitioner be obtained political pension by using name of another political sufferer and, therefore, he may file his reply within 15 days as to why his pension should not be stopped. A reply was given by petitioner after perusing which State Government passed an order cancelling his pension. Pension paid to petitioner from Central Government was also suspended. The order dated 3rd April is bone fire (sic of any reason. But as it was said to be based on report of Commissioner it was sent for. It transpired to be very detailed presumably because in the earlier report submitted by Commissioner it was stated that petitioner was not guilty of any fraud etc. At the first flush it appeared that opposite party had indeed done some focal service. But when it wait examined closely and other records including jail register were seen then it appeared to what extent petitioner has been tortured. In the lengthy report two things are mentioned, one in favour of petitioner and the other against him. The claim of opposite party that petitioner was born in 1931, to demonstrate that he could not have been jailed in 1942, was not found substantiated in view of Chief Medical Officers report. But the Commissioner drew inference against petitioner as one Jokhai Lal having same name as petitioner but a Gadariya by caste was produced before him. He admitted that he was convicted and jailed on 20th Nov., 1942. The Commissioner directed petitioner and the other Jokhai Lal to give their thumb-impressions to be Rallied by thumb-impression of jail register The other Jokhai Lal gave his thumb-impression and it tallied also with thumb impression of jail register. The petitioner did not give his thumb-impression. Due to this the Commissioner was satisfied that petitioner had obtained pension by using name of other Jokhai Lal.

(3.) How wrong he was in drawing this inference rather was misled was established when jail register was examined. But before mentioning about, it may be pointed out that it stands undisputed that there were two Jokhai Lal, one Gadariya by caste and other Harijan by caste in Allahabad. Fathers name of both is also the same. Both of them were getting pension as freedom fighters. There is no dispute about Jokhai Lal who is Gardariya by caste. The entry in jail register of 20th Nov., 1942 is Jokhai Lal Gadariya. As petitioner is Harijan by caste the Commissioner felt that he used the name of Jokhai Lal Gadariya and obtained political passion. He was supported in his belief refusal of the petitioner to submit his thumb impression to be verified with the thumb-impressions of Jokbai Lal entered in the Jail register at serial No. 6289 on 20th Nov., 1942 Although the petitioner has produced photostat copies of application filed by petitioner before the State Government and Commissioner explaining the circumstances in which lie did not agree to be subjected to this examination, as according to him Jokhai Lal, who was entered in jail register at serial No. 6289 was another Jokhai Lal, but even without that it is apparent that petitioner being Jokhai Lal Harijan could not have agreed for getting his thumb-impression tallied with that of Jokhai Lal Gadariya. In jail register the first entry for 20th Nov. is at the end of page 59 in name of Jokhai Gadariya at serial number 6289. Thereafter pages 60 and 61 are missing. The next entry is at serial number 6289 at top page 62 for 2nd Nov., 1942. Every entry is complete in itself as it not only mentions date of entry but Sec. under which one is convicted, payment of fine and date of release etc. Therefore, in absence of pages 60 and 61 it could not be held that petitioner was not sentenced or he was not imprisoned Atleast no adverse inference could be drawn against him. Nor could it be held that petitioner obtained pension by misrepresentation. It was never his claim that he was same Jokhai Lal who was entered at serial number 6289. From very beginning he claimed to have been imprisoned twice once in 1932 and second ti. : from 20th Nov., 1942 to 11th April, 1942 (sic) It was believed and he was granted pension as far back as 1966. Jail record of 1932 is not available. Ami of 1942 has been narrated earlier. No explanation has come since when pages o0 and 61 are missing. May be when certificates were given by Additional District Magistrate in 1979 they were there. The petitioner never claimed benefit of entry 6289 is further clear from fact that period mentioned therein is from 20th Nov., 1942 to 18th April 1942 (sic). And as stated earlier petitioner claimed to have been in jail from 20th Nov. to 11th April only.