Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vinai Krishna Gaur vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 25 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 25 ALL
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2011

Allahabad High Court
Vinai Krishna Gaur vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2011
Bench: Rajesh Chandra



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Reserved 
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3527 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Vinai Krishna Gaur
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ankit Kumar Rai,Lav Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The case as disclosed in the first information report is as under:-

A limited number of Oath Commissioners (both officials as well as Advocates) are appointed every year for swearing affidavits, which are filed in writ petition/cases in High Court for this purpose prescribed fee is charged by them. In order to have check upon Oath Commissioners and with a view to have proper maintenance of account, the system of coupons was introduced. The notional price of one coupon has been fixed at the rate of 0.01 paise per coupon as printing charges, which the Oath Commissioners are required to pay in Cash Section at the time of purchase. Besides, under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, fee for Oath Commissioner for one affidavit is also fixed from time to time. At the time of purchase of coupon from Cash Section of the Court, the Oath Commissioners are required to pay at the rate of 0.01 paise plus the amount of fee so fixed per coupon. The amount so collected as printing charges 0.01 paise is deposited in favour of Government under the relevant head "Other Misc." (O.M.) while the fee amount so collected is distributed amongst the Oath Commissioners as their shares. Incomes were shared amongst the members of Employees & Advocates in the ration of 40% & 60%. Further a welfare scheme was also introduced for the first time, according to which, out of Rs. 12/- an amount of Rs. 10/- has to be distributed amongst the officials and non-officials Oath Commissioners in the ratio of 40% & 60% and the balance of Rs. 2/- has to be distributed in the same ratio for the welfare of both the Associations mentioned above. The above scheme was introduced with the approval of Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 22.02.1990. When the welfare Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.03.1990, Sri V. K. Gaur was already there as Cashier-Cum-Accountant with effect from 1.8.1988. He become Section Officer (Cash) with effect from 18.11.1993 and continued to be there till his suspension on 18th May, 1999.

It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused-applicant did not deposit the sale amount regularly and embezzled an amount of Rs. 7,87,266/-. In this regard an enquiry was made at the High Court level and the Joint Registrar accounts reported on 12.08.1999 that the above said amount has been embezzled. When the statement of the applicant was recorded in the enquiry he admitted this fact and also sought time to deposit the money in instalments.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has already been terminated from the services of the High Court and in a Civil Suit filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount, the applicant's property has been attached before judgment. He has also not been paid any provident fund or gratuity and is also suffering various ailment including diabetes and blood pressure. It was lastly argued that the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2009.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that the applicant was an employee with the High Court which in the eye of common man is the fountain of justice and any defalcation by an employee of the High Court has to be viewed very seriously.

I considered over the respective arguments. The accused-applicant was working as an empoyee in the High Court and as such was having a greater responsibility towards the proper functioning and discharge of his duties but he instead defalcated the Government money to the extent of money Rs. 7,87,266/-. In view of the seriousness of the offence, I am satisfied that no case for bail is made out.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 3.3.2011

M/A.

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter