SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 64

E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, N.D.OJHA
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Pal Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, O.P.RANA, R.RAMACHANDRAN, SHOBHA DIXIT

JUDGMENT

OJHA, J.:— This appeal by special leave preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 10th March, 1987 in Civil Misc. Writ Petri. No. 15545 of 1984 (reported in 1987 Cri LJ 1188) raises a question about the interpretation and scope of Regulation 486(1)(3) of the U.P. Police Regulations, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The respondent Surinder Pal Singh who was a Station Officer of Police Station, Shikohabad was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20th June, 1977. A first Information Report was lodged against him in the Police Station, Shikohabad on 8th June, 1980 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Agra Circle under sections 409/392/203/218/ 342/120-B of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under sections 4/20 of the Treasure Trove Act. According to this First Information Report while digging some land on l st March, 1977, one Parsu Ram Jatav and Jaipal Jatav found 20 gold bricks which they failed to deposit with the authorities. However, on receiving an information in this behalf from one Hiralal and Vinod Kumar, the said gold was recovered by the respondent but wa











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top