Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Vinod on 18 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLA No. 285 of 2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned D.A.G. alongwith Mr. R.K.
Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Pursuant to our previous order dated 12.07.2023,
learned State Counsel has produced, in Court, letter dated
22.07.2023 received from District Magistrate, Garhwal.
The same is taken on record.
4. In the said letter, DM, Garhwal has stated that State
Government has refused to grant permission to file appeal,
against acquittal recorded vide judgment dated 31.03.2023
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar,
Pauri Garhwal in S.T. No. 29 of 2019 (State Vs. Vinod
Garg and others). Alongwith the said letter, a copy of
order dated 12.07.2023 issued by Joint Secretary (Law)
Govt. of Uttarakhand is also enclosed. A perusal of the
said order reveals that the Law Department has turned
down the proposal submitted by District Magistrate for
filing appeal.
5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that it is a case of day light murder and the trial
court has misread the evidence which resulted in
miscarriage of justice. He drew our attention to paragraph
no.68 of the impugned judgment which reveals that the
bullet, removed from the body of deceased, matched with
the pistol recovered on the pointing out of accused-Deepak
Maan (respondent no.6 herein).
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn
our attention towards paragraph no.29 of the impugned
judgment and submitted that PW-16 SI Satendra Bhati has
stated that before succumbing to injuries, deceased named
three persons, namely, Dabbu, Brijesh and Lala ji, as
persons who might be responsible for the attack on him.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that there was the
motive upon the accused persons to commit the crime
inasmuch as deceased had made several complaints
against Vinod Lala and Serveshwar Prasad @ Dabbu in
respect of several land dealings.
8. Thus, learned counsel for appellant submits that this
is a fit case in which State should have filed appeal but
Law Department has refused permission to file appeal. He
further submits that in petty matters, the State chooses to
prefer appeal, but in this important matter, permission has
been denied. Thus, according to him, there is no
transparency in the matter, and grant of permission
depends upon the whims and fancies of the concerned
officers in Law Department.
9. Learned counsel further points out that this Court
had inquired from the State Government as to whether the
State intends to file any appeal against the impugned
judgment, but the Law Department has turned down the
proposal submitted by the District Magistrate, Garhwal.
10. In such view of the matter, we find some substance
in the aforesaid submissions put forth by learned counsel
for the appellant.
11. We have also noticed that the order, by which the
respondent-State was directed to find out as to whether
any appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State,
was passed on 12.07.2023 and the proposal for filing the
appeal was rejected on the same day i.e., on 12.07.2023.
Although the proposal was pending with the law
department since 11.05.2023.
12. The procedure for grant of permission requires to be
streamlined and the matters involving permission to file an
appeal before the High Court should be dealt with in an
objective and reasonable manner.
13. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to call for
comments from the Joint Secretary (Law) and Joint L.R.,
Govt. of Uttarakhand. Such comments shall be submitted
within two weeks.
14. List on 14.09.2023.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.08.2023
R.Dang
