Input:
Appeal No.4375 OF 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.1990 of the Karna taka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 2564 of 1989.
M.K. Ramamurthy, section Ravindra, K.V. Mohan and S.R. Bhat for the Appellant.
Raju Ramachandran, M. Veerappa and Kh.
Nobin Singh (N.P.) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered AHMADI, J.
Special leave granted.
The controversy which we are required to resolve in this appeal by special leave is regarding the appellant 's senior ity vis a vis respondents Nos.3 to 7.
The factual background which has given rise to this controversy, briefly stated, is as under: In the year 1966 posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) were created in the Department of Mines and Geology (Ground Water Surveys and Drilling Unit) of the State of Karnataka.
The appellant who was then working as a Rigman in the Drill ing Unit of the Department was appointed Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the scale of Rs. 200 375 on one of the said posts by an order dated 14th August, 1967 issued by the Director of the department.
Subsequently, he was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the said post w.e.f. 4th May, 1970.
However, even though the Director had requested the State Government to frame Re cruitment Rules for the newly created post immediately after its creation, the Recruitment Rules were not finalised till the issuance of a Notification dated 26th June, 1973.
Before the appellant was regularly recruited through the State Public Service Commission in the year 1970 the Director had apprised the Government of the action which he proposed to 602 take to fill up the post.
The appointment order was issued after the Public Service Commission had advertised the post and had selected persons for appointment to the said posts.
The appellant was initially appointed on probation for one year and on his satisfactorily completing the probation period he was continued in service and was later confirmed in the said post by an order dated 13th June, 1974 w.e.f. 29th September, 1972.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 entered service as Drillers in 1964 65.
The appellant and the respondents Nos.
3 to 7 were promoted as Assistant Drilling Engineers by the Director 's order dated 16th December, 1974.
The Office Order No.676/74 75 shows that the appellant and one another were working as Junior Engineers at the relevant time whereas respondents Nos.
3 to 7 were working as Drillers before their promotions as Assistant Drilling Engineers.
The State Government did not approve of the Director 's action in promoting the appellant since he was a local candidate and directed that he be reverted.
However, no such reversion took place.
The State Government also did not take any further action.
The appellant was shown senior to respond ents Nos. 3 to 7 in the said cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineers.
The appellant was subsequently promoted by the State Government to the next higher post of Drilling Engi neer in 1980 and further as Chief Drilling Engineer in 1984 which post he was holding at the date when his seniority came to be disturbed.
The appellant was throughout shown senior to respondents Nos.
3 to 7 till the revised provi sional seniority list in regard to the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineers was published on 31st December, 1987.
Since objections were invited the appellant objected to his being shown junior to respondents Nos.3 to 7 but to no avail.
Even in the final seniority list dated 4th May, 1989 he was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
Respondents Nos.3 to 7 were shown in both the provisional and final seniority list at Serial Nos.1 to 5 whereas the appellant was shown at Serial No.6.
Thus, for the first time, since his regular appointment in the year 1970, he was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 under the provisional seniority list issued in 1987 and the final seniority sen iority list issued in 1989.
The appellant, therefore, chal lenged the provisional seniority list as well as the final seniority list by an Application No. 2564 of 1989 preferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal by its order dated 3rd September, 1990 rejected his application holding that his initial entry into service as a Junior Engineer was itself irregular and since he did not have the requisite experience of three years as a regular incumbent he was not qualified to be promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Drilling Engineer because his regular employ ment could only be related from the date of framing of the Recruitment Rules for the adre which came to be notified on 23rd August, 1973.
In this view of 603 the matter, the Tribunal held that the service of the appel lant from 4th May, 1970 to 23rd August, 1973 could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining his inter se seniority vis a vis respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
The appellant feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his applica tion, has approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The appellant contends that the order of the Tribunal suffers from a number of fallacies, namely, firstly, the Tribunal has failed to realise that the appellant was re cruited as a regular employee on selection by the State Public Service Commission pursuant to an advertisement issued in this behalf and, therefore, the appellant 's em ployment was regular in nature and not that of a mere local candidate; secondly, the post to which he was appointed was a regularly created post and was a higher than that of respondents Nos. 3 to 7 even during the period there existed no recruitment rules and in any case after his confirmation w.e.f.
29th September, 1972 it was not open to the Tribunal to hold that his appointment was irregular and thirdly, the Tribunal had erred in overlooking the guideline issued by the state Government on 5th July, 1976 which specifically provided that 'all appointments made by the Government or under specific authority of Government either by direct recruitment or by promotion or on or after 1st November, 1956 but prior to the commencement of the Rules regarding recruitment to such cadres may be treated as regular '.
The appellant contends that in pursuance of this guideline issued by the State Government even if it is assumed that his initial appointment was irregular it had to be treated as regular throughout.
The appellant, therefore, contends that the Tribunal 's order suffers from certain patent in firmities and deserves to be set aside.
It appears that before the Tribunal respondents Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 did not file any counter challenging the appellant 's claim to sen iority but respondents Nos. 3 and 5 contested the appel lant 's claim while the State Government avoided entering into the arena by filing a counter but instead presented the relevant files to the Tribunal.
So far as respondents Nos. 3 and 5 are concerned, they supported the action taken by the state Government in preparing both the impugued provisional as well as the final seniority lists.
They contended that since they were regular employees and had entered service before the appellant and were promoted to the post of As sistant Drilling Engineers along with the appellant they were clearly senior to 'the appellant and the State Govern ment was, therefore, justified in showing them at Serial Nos.1 to 5 and the appellant at Serial No. 6 in the seniori ty list.
They, therefore, contend that this 604 appeal is without substance and needs to be dismissed.
We have heard counsel for the rival contestants.
Counsel of the State Government submitted that they had prepared the seniority list for reasons already stated but they would not like to take sides and would abide by the decision of this court.
In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
According to Rule 5, the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka are classified into Class I, Class II, Class II and Class IV posts.
Class I and Class II are gazetted Posts whereas Class III and Class IV consist of non gazetted Posts.
So far as Class III posts are concerned the initial appointments have to be made by the authorities mentioned in Column 2 of Schedule II appended to the Rules.
In regard to the posts of Junior Engineers the lind Schedule makes the Director the Appointing Authority.
There can, therefore, be no doubt that the initial appoint ment of the appellant was by an authority competent to appoint.
It is indeed true that at the time when the appel lant was selected by the State Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f.
4th May, 1970 there were no specific Recruitment Rules in existence for the post in question.
As stated earlier, the posts were created for the first time in 1966 and since then the Director had been in correspondence with the State Government for framing of the Recruitment Rules for the said posts.
Since the Recruitment rules were not framed for one reason or the other, in 1969 the Director wrote a letter to the State Public Service Commission to advertise the vacancies and select candidates for appointment.
Simultaneously, he wrote a letter informing the State Government of the action taken by him in request ing the State Public Service Commission to advertise the posts and select candidates for appointment.
Pursuant to the requisition sent by him the Commission selected candidates and forwarded the list to the Director who was the Appoint ing Authority under the Karnataka Civil Service (Classifica tion, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
The Director who was competent to make the appointment by virtue of Rule 7 issued a letter of appointment dated 24th April, 1970 whereapon the appellant took charge w.e.f. 4th May, 1970.
It, therefore, becomes apparent that the posts were regularly created sometime in 1966 and the appellant was duly selected by the State Public Service Commission and appointed to the post in question in 1970.
The appellant being an engineering gradu ate was qualified for appointment to post in question.
The state Government 's approach while sliding down the appellant in seniority vis a vis the respondents Nos.
3 to 7 may be briefly noticed.
605 After the recruitment rules for Junior Engineers (Mechani cal) were framed and brought into effect w.e.f.
23rd August, 1973, it was felt that the two posts of Junior Engineers were filled by direct recruitment contrary to the said rules which provided a ratio of 50% by promotion from the cadre of Drillers and 50% by direct recruitment.
Since both the posts were filled by direct recruitment, it was felt that this ratio was violated.
The date of the appellant 's seniority was, therefore, reckoned from 23rd August, 1973 and since the appellant had not acquired experience of three years he was held ineligible for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Drilling Engineer.
His entry into the promo tional post was, therefore, pushed down to 23rd August, 1976 and accordingly respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were placed above him in the seniority list.
The Tribunal concurred with this approach.
The Tribunal held that the initial appointment of the appellant as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) by the Direc tor was not supported by any rules and the Director not being the appointing authority for the said posts in 1970, the appellant 's appointment was not regular.
Secondly, the Tribunal concurred with the Government that the appellant 's entry into the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineer must be assumed to be w.e.f.
23rd August, 1976 and hence respondents nos.
3 to 7 were clearly senior to him.
In short the Tribu nal approved of the Government 's approach in With respect we find it difficult to approve of the said approach.
As pointed out earlier, the posts were sanc tioned in 1966.
Initially the appellant was appointed as a local candidate but later the Director requested the State Public Service Commission to advertise the said two posts and select candidates for appointment to the said posts.
Pursuant to the advertisement so issued the appellant ap plied, was found qualified and was selected for appointment.
The Director, therefore, made the appointment as he was the appointing authority for Class III posts under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, vide Rule 7(2) read with Column 2 of Schedule II thereto.
That rule clearly shows that the Director is the appointing authority for Junior Engineers, a Class III post.
The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that the appointment made was irregular as it was not by the appoint ing authority.
The Tribunal was wrong in holding that the Director was not the appointing authority for Junior Engi neers.
Strictly speaking, that was not the approach of the Government.
The Government held the appointment irregular as in its opinion it had exceeded the quota of 50% for direct recruits.
This view is based on the premise that the serv ices must be regularised applying the 1973 Rules retrospec tively.
Here there are two fallacies, firstly the appellant being senior of the two direct recruits appointed as Junior Engineers, he would fill the slot for the one post which 606 went to direct recruits on the 50% quota and secondly it was not permissible to question the appointment made in 1970 in 1987 when in the intervening period none had challenged the appellant 's appointment.
The objection which the Government had raised on his promotion to the next higher post was that he was a local candidate and not a regular appointee, an objection which was not pursued presumably on realising that he was selected by the State Public Service Commission before appointment.
Not only that the Government acquiesced in his appointment by promoting him to the next higher posts in 1980 and 1984.
Since the posts existed on the establish ment and selection for appointment was made by the State Public Service Commission and the Director was competent to make the appointment, it cannot be said that the absence of recruitment rules makes the appointment illegal or irregular when it is found that the appellant, a degree holder, was eligible for appointment to the post.
This is so also be cause irregular appointments were regularised by the Govern ment Memorandum dated 5th July, 1976, the relevant part whereof reads as under: "3(a).
All appointments made by Government or under specific authority of Government either by direct recruitment or by promotion on or after 1st November, 1956, but prior to the commencement of rules regulating recruitment to such cadres may be treated as regular".
This was clarified by the subsequent letter dated 17th September, 1977 as under: "Para 3(a) states that all the appointments made by Govern ment or under specific authority of Government either by direct recruitment or by promotion on or after 1.11.1956 and prior to the commencement of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the concerned cadre may be treated as regular, that is to say, the action taken by Government on other Appointing authorities in resorting either of the modes of recruitment is regular.
This para does not say that the appointment of local candidates as a stop gap arrangement is regular".
The Tribunal refused to place reliance on the above on the erroneous ground that the Director was not the appoint ing authority and the appellant was a local candidate.
Once both these are found to be erroneous there is no reason to brush aside the said guidelines.
It may also be appreciated that the services of local candidates in Class III cadre were regularised by Office Order No.177/71 72 dated 31s1 August, 1971 and had the 607 appellant not have been appointed as a regular candidate w.e.f. 4th May, 1970 his service would also have been regu larised as a local candidate.
From what we have discussed above it is obvious that the entire approach of the State Government and the Tribunal was erroneous.
Besides, the appellant was shown senior to re spondents Nos.
3 to 7 right from 1970 to 1987 when his seniority came to be disturbed.
During the said period of 17 years all attempts to disturb his seniority had 'failed.
No one successfully challenged it in Court.
The appellant 's seniority which had stabilised over a period of time and on the basis whereof he was granted promotions by the Govern ment could not be disturbed by doubting the.
regularity of the initial appointment after so many years.
It was not as if he had gained experience as an ad hoc employee in a stop gap arrangement that his experience as a Junior Engi neer could be overlooked.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that his seniority in the promotion post could not be upset on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experi ence till 23rd August, 1976.
In Direct Recruit Class H Engineering Officer 's Associa tion vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, ; , this Court held in paragraph 13 as under: "The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16.
If an appointment is made by way of stop gap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment.
To equate the two would be to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause.
But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority.
Same will be the position if the initial appoint ment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case.
To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary".
In the present case also the appellant 's appointment was made in 1970 after all eligible candidates were interviewed by the State Public Service Commission.
As pointed out earlier, the posts were borne on the establishment and the Director was the appointing authority who made the appoint ment pursuant to the selection made by the State Public Service Commission.
The appellant worked on that post unit erruptedly till he was 608 promoted to the next higher post along with respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
In these circumstances, his experience in the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from 1970 till his promotion to the next higher post could not be ignored.
We are, there fore, of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Consti tution Bench in the aforequoted paragraph applies with all force in the present case also.
In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
We hold that the appellant 's seniori ty over respondents Nos.
3 to 7 as was obtaining before 31st December, 1987 when the provisional seniority list was published shall be restored and he shall be shown to be senior to respondents Nos.
3 to 7 by correcting the impugned final seniority list.
The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

Output:
The appellant, a Rigman in the Department of Mines and Geology, State of Karnataka, was initially appointed as a local candidate on the newly created post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical).
Later he was regularly selected by the State Public Service Commission and appointed on the said post on 4.5.1970 by the Director and was confirmed on the said post on 29.9.1972.
On 16.12.1974, he, alongwith respondents No. 3 to 7, who were drillers in the Department was promoted as Assistant Drilling Engineer and was shown senior to them.
However, in the revised provisional seniority list as well as in the final seniority list, he was shown junior to respondents No. 3 to 7 in the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineer.
The appellant filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority lists which was rejected holding (i) the appellant 's appointment as Junior Engineer was irregular because it was not support ed by Recruitment Rules and the Director was not the ap pointing authority; (ii) since the appellant had not ac quired three years experience as regular incumbent he was not qualified to be promoted as Assistant Drilling Engineer;, his regular employment could only be related from the date of framing of the Recruitment Rules.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that appellant 's service from 4th May, 1970 to 23rd August, 1973 could not be taken into considera tion for reckoning his seniority and hence he was junior to Respondents No3 to 7.
599 600 The appellant filed an appeal in this Court challeng ing the Tribunal 's order contending that (i) in view of his recruitment as a regular employe on selection by the Service Commission his employment was regular in nature; (ii) the post to which he was appointed was regularly created post and was higher than that of respondents even during the period there existed recruitment rules; in any case after his confirmation it was not open to the Tribunal to hold his appointment irregular;, and (iii) in view of the guidelines issued by the State Government, under which irregular ap pointments were regularised, even if it is assumed his initial appointment was irregular it has to be treated regular throughout.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal this Court: HELD :1.
Rule 7(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1957 read with column 2 of Schedule 11 thereto clearly shows that the Director is the appointing authority for Junior Engineers.
The appellant was found qualified and was duly selected by the Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Engi neer in 1970.
He worked on the post uninterruptedly till he was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Drilling Engineer alongwith the respondents No. 3 to 7.
The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that the appointment made was irregular and that the Director was not the ap pointing authority for Junior Engineers.
Accordingly his experience in the post of Junior Engineer from 1970 till his promotion to the next higher post could not be ignored.
[605 F, 604 G, 607 H, 608 A] 2.
Since the posts existed on the establishment and selection for appointment was made by the State Public Service Commission and the Director was competent to make the appointment, it cannot be said that the absence of recruitment rules made the appointment illegal or irregular.
Moreover, the irregular appointments were regularised by the Government Memorandum dated 5th July, 1976.
[606 B C] 3.
The appellant 's seniority which had stabilised over a period of time and on the basis whereof he was granted promotions by the Government could not be disturbed by doubting the regularity of the initial appointment after so many years.
It was not as if he had gained experience as an ad hoc employee in a stop gap arrangement that his experi ence as a Junior Engineer could be overlooked.
Therefore, his 601 seniority in the promotion post could not be upset on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience.
[607 B C] Direct Recruit Class H Engineering Officers ' Associa tion vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
; , fol lowed.
The appellant 's seniority over respondents No. 3 to 7 shall be restored and he shall be shown to be senior to them.
[608 B]


Input:
Civil Appeal No. 1401 of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.1987 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 607 of 1982.
S.R. Bhat and Prabir Chaudhury (NP) for the Appellants.
A.B. Rohtagi, M. Veerappa, R.L. Bhardwaj and Vishnu Mathur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J.
The Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, which received the assent of the President on 1st October, 1974, is an Act to provide for improvement and clearance of slums in the State of Karnataka.
Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to declare certain areas as slum areas.
If the Government is satisfied that any area which is likely to be a source of danger to health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood by reason of the area being low lying, unsanitary, squalid, over crowded or otherwise, the Government may by notification declare the areas as 'slum area '.
Under Section 11, when the Government is satisfied on a report from the competent authority that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the clearance of such area and demolition of the buildings in the area, it may, by notification, declare the area to be the 'slum clearance area '.
The Notification No. HMA 59 MCS 76 dated 17.1.1977 was issued by the Karnataka Government declaring an extent of one acre in Timber Yard slum by the side of Main Road, Cottonpet, Bangalore, as 'slum area '.
After considering the objections, another notification dated 30.12.1977 was issued under Section I(1) of the Act declaring 978 the entire land as 'slum clearance area '.
However, on January 20, 1981, the Government issued notification under Section 3(1) cancelling the earlier notification dated 30.12.1977 and re declaring an extent of 14 1/2 guntas only as 'slum area '.
The notification dated 20.1.1981 had been challenged by the appellants mainly on the grounds that it is in violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated.
It was contended that slum dwellers who are affected by the Government 's action have not been given an opportunity of being heard and they have been denied equality by denying basic human needs since a major part of the slum area has been excluded from the operation of the scheme.
The single Judge of the High Court took the view that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification and even on merits there was no case.
The Division Bench of the High Court agreed on the question of locus standi and without going into the merits confirmed the judgment.
The appellants have approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We have granted special leave to appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants relying on the decisions of this Court in section P. Gupta vs Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 and Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, [ 1985] Suppl.
2 SCR 51 vehemently contended that the High Court has erred in holding that the petitioners have no locus standi.
He also submitted that in view of the purpose of the legislation and the scheme contemplated thereunder once action has been taken declaring a larger area as 'slum clearance area ', any change thereafter which would directly affect the slum dwellers could not be taken without giving the affected persons an opportunity of being heard and, there is, therefore, the clear violation of the principle of natural justice.
It was also urged that there is no specific provision under the statute enabling the Government to rescind the notification and assuming that it exists, there was no proper exercise of the power.
Mr. Rohtagi, counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, submitted that the first notification dated 17.1.1977 was challenged by the owners of the land in a writ petition as they were not heard as required and the fresh notification have been issued on the assurance given before the Court that they would be heard.
It was pointed out that there was no need to hear the owners or occupiers at the stage of issuing the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act and Section 11 979 does not confer any Statutory right to the occupiers.
Relying on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, it was maintained that the power to withdraw or rescind the notification was inherent and the authority who is empowered to issue the notification is entilitled to rescind the same.
It was also pointed out that there had been dispute over the title of the land in question that civil litigation was in progress and that the earlier declaration was made without proper basis.
Action has been taken by the owners against the tenants for eviction and orders have been obtained in their favour and the petitioners have no case and are not entitled to any relief.
The counsel for the State adopted these arguments.
The first question that falls for consideration is whether the appellants can challenge the action of the Government.
This question need not detain us when the law is now settled that in such situation even a public interest litigation would lie.
The first appellant Association represents the interests of the slum dwellers and the second appellant himself is one of the residents in the area.
The action of the Government on the averments made affects a class of persons and if that group of persons is represented by the Association, they have a right to be heard in the matter.
Where a member of the public acting bona fide moves the Court for enforcement of a fundamental right on behalf of a person or class of persons who on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach the Court for relief, such member of the public may move the Court even by just writing a letter as held by this Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Ors., ; We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was wrong in concluding that appellants were incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
We shall now consider the argument that the State Government had no power to rescind the notification issued under Sections 3 and 11 in the absence of any specific provision in the Act.
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is in pari materia with Section 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act.
This Section reads: "21.
POWER TO ISSUE TO INCLUDE, POWER TO ADD TO, AMEND, VARY OR RESCIND NOTIFICATIONS,ORDERS, RULES OR BYE LAWS.
Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add 980 to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rule or bye laws so issued.
" Under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it.
It is always open to the Government to rescind the notification.
We shall refer to the decisions of this Court in State of Kerala vs K. G. Madhavan Pillai, ; ; State of M. P. vs, V. P. Sharma, [ ; and Lt. Governor of H. P. vs Sri Avinash Sharma,[1970] 2 SCC 149.
In these cases arising under the Land Acquisition Act, the issue before the Court was whether the Government could exercise powers only under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act to withdraw a notification for acquisition made under Section 4(1) of the Act.
When the Government issued successive notifications under Section 6 covering different portions of the land notified for acquisition under Section 4(1), the validity of the last of the notification was challenged on the ground that a notification under Section 4(1) could be followed only by one notification under Section 6.
In repelling the contention, this Court incidentally observed at page 693 thus: "That the only way in which the notification under Section 4(1) can come to an end is by withdrawal under Section 48(1)" is not correct because "under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it and therefore it is always open to the Government to rescind a notification under Section 4 or under Section 6 and a withdrawal under Section 48(1) is not the only way in which a notification under Section 4 or Section 6 can be brought to an end." In Lt. Governor of H.P. vs Sri Avinash Sharma, (supra) the Court observed at page 151 thus: "Power to cancel a notification for compulsory acquisition is, it is true, not affected by Section 48 of the Act; by a notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the Government may cancel or rescind the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
But the power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be exercised after the land statutorily vests in the State Government.
" In Lachmi Narain vs Union of India, ; , this 981 Court observed at page 808 thus: "Section 21, as pointed out by this Court in Gopichand vs Delhi Admn., [1959] Suppl.
2 SCR 87, embodies only a rule of constructions and the nature and extent of its application must be governed by the relevant statute which confers the power to issue the notification.
" In State of Bihar vs D.N. Ganguly & Ors., ; , it was held that it is well settled that the rule of construction embodied in S.21 of the General Clauses Act can apply to the provisions of a statute only where the subject matter, context or effect of such provisions are in no way inconsistent with such application.
In that case, the question was where an industrial dispute has been referred to a tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, can the said government supersede the said reference pending adjudication before the tribunal constituted for that purpose? The Court held the notification to be invalid and ultra vires pointing our that is would be necessary to examine carefully the scheme of the ACt, its object and all its relevant and material provisions before deciding the application of the rule of construction enunciate by Section 21.
After examining the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court said that once an order in writing is made by the appropriate government under Section 10(1)(d), the proceedings before the tribunal are deemed to have commenced and if the appropriate government has by implication the power to cancel its order passed under Section 10(1), the proceedings before the tribunal would be rendered wholly ineffective by the exercise of such power and Section 21 cannot be invoked.
In Kamla Prasad Khetan vs Union of India, ; , this Court considred the scope of Section 21 of the General Clause Act.
At page 1068, the Court observed thus: "The power to issue an order under any Central Act includes a power to amend the order; but this power is subject to a very important qualification and the qualification is contained in the words `exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) '. . . . . .
The true scope and effect of the expression `subject to the like conditions (if any) ' occurring in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has been explained.
" 982 Relying on these decisions, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that even if source of power could be traced under Section 21, the exercised of that power could only be in the same manner as provided and when a notification under Section 3(1) had been issued declaring certain areas as `slum area ', the power to rescind the notification and limit the extent could be exercised only after hearing the affected parties, for the Government to satisfy itself that what has already been declared does not come within the scope of the proposed scheme.
The object of the statute and the relief that was sought to be conferred are matters to be taken into consideration in such action.
It has been brought to our notice that about 100 persons had been living in the area under conditions which require the implementation of the scheme under the Act for their redressal and once steps have been taken in that direction any variation that could affect the occupants in the areas was required to be made only after giving them an opportunity of being heard.
It is thus maintained that there had been no proper exercise of the power assuming that the power is vested on the Government and there is clear violation of the principle of natural justice.
It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.
If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.
What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame work of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for the purpose.
It is only where there is nothing in the statue to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding, that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported.
The Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearnance) ACt, 1958, this Court held in Government of Mysore & Ors.
vs J.V. Bhat etc.
; , thus: There can be no two opinions about the need to hear the affected persons before declaring an area to be a slum area under section 3 or an area as a clearance area under section 9 or before taking action under section 10.
All these difficulties will be removed if the affected persons are given 983 an opportunity to be heard in respect of the action proposed.
" The Preamble to the present Act itself states that the Act is to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State.
Under the existing law, it has not been possible effectively to check the increase and to eliminate congestion and to provide for basic needs such as streets, water supply, and drainage and to clear the slums which are unfit for human habitation.
To obviate this difficulty, it is considered expedient to provide for the removal of unhygenic and insanitary conditions prevailing in the slums for better accommodation and improved living conditions for slum dwellers for the promotion of public health generally.
These are the objectives sought to be achieved by the enactment which has been made in implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy to improve public health.
It is, therefore, obvious that when a declaration has been made in implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy to improve public health.
It is, therefore, obvious that when a declaration is made under section 3 and a further declaration is made under section 11, the inhabitants of the areas are affected and any further action in relation to the area which areas are affected and any further action in relation to the area which is declared to the `slum clearance area ' without affording such persons an opportunity of being heard would prejudicially affect their rights.
The right to be heard in the matter has been acquired by the earlier action of the authority in considering the area for the purpose of the scheme.
This is clear from the proviso to sub sec.
(1) of Section 11 of scheme.
This is clear from the proviso to sub sec.
(1) of Section 11 of the Act.
When any alternation is sought to be made in the original scheme, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to give an opportunity to the persons who had been affected by the earlier order and required to adopt a certain course of action.
In this view of the matter it is to be held that when a notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the affected parties, it is clear violation of the principle of natural justice.
Such action is exercise of the implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised subject to be quashed on this ground.
It shall be open to the Government to proceed after affording the slum dwellers an opportunity of being heard on the basis of the earlier notifications that were in force.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
The impugned notification is quashed subject to the observations made.
We make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.

Output:
Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 Notification No. HMA 59 MCS 76 dated 17.1.1977 was issued by the State Government declaring an extent of one acre in the city of Bangalore, as 'slum area '.
After considering the objections, another notification dated 30.12.1977 was issued under Section 11(1) of the Act declaring the entire land as 'slum clearance area '.
However, on January 20, 1981, the Government issued notification under Section 3(1) cancelling the earlier notification dated 3.12.1977 and re declaring an extent of 14 1/2 guntas only as 'slum area '.
The appellants, an Association representing the interest of slum dwellers and a resident of the area challenged notification dated 20.1.1981 on the ground that it was in violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the slum dwellers affected by the Government 's action were not given an opportunity of being heard and were denied equality, since a major part of the slum area has been excluded from the operation of the scheme.
A Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the notification and that even on merits there was no case.
The Division Bench agreed on the question of locus standi but did not go into the merits.
975 The appellants filed an appeal by special leave before this Court, contending that the High Court had erred in holding that the petitioners had no locus standi, that in view of the purpose of the legislation and the scheme contemplated thereunder, once action had been taken declaring a larger area as 'slum clearance area ', any change thereafter which directly affected the slum dwellers could not be taken without giving the affected persons an opportunity of being heard and, there was, therefore, clear violation of the principle of natural justice, and that there was no specific provision under the statute enabling the Government to rescind the notification, and even assuming that it existed there was no proper exercise of the power.
On behalf of Respondent No. 3 it was submitted that there was no need to hear the owners or occupiers at the stage of issuing notification under Section 3(1) of the Act and Section 11 did not confer any statutory right on the occupiers, and that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power to withdraw or rescind the notification was inherent and the authority who was empowered to issue the notification was entitled to rescind the same.
The State adopted the contentions of Respondents No. 3.
Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. 1.
Where a member of the public acting bona fide moves the Court for enforcement of a fundamental right on behalf of a person or class of persons who, on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach the Court for relief, such member of the public may move the Court even by just writing a letter.
[979E] Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Ors.
, ; , relied on.
section P. Gupta vs Union of India, [19821 2 SCR 365; Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985] Suppl.
2 SCR 51, referred to. 1.2.
The first appellant Association represents the interests of the slum dwellers and the second appellant himself is one of the residents in the area.
The action of the Government affects a class of persons and if that group of persons is represented by the Association, they have a right to be heard in the matter.
Even a public interest litigation would lie in such a situation.
Therefore, the High Court was wrong in concluding that appellants were incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.[979D, F] 976 2.1.
What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose.
It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard but, on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding, that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported.
1982F] 2.2.
It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.
If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.
[982E] 2.3.
When a declaration is made under Section 3 and a further declaration is made under Section 11, the inhabitants of the areas are affected and any further action in relation to the area which is declared to be 'slum clearance area ' without affording such persons an opportunity of being heard would prejudicially affect their rights.
The right to be heard in the matter has been acquired by the earlier action of the authority in considering the area for the purpose of the scheme.
This is clear from the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11 of the Act.
When any alteration is sought to be made in the original scheme, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to give an opportunity to the persons who had been affected by the earlier order and required to adopt a certain course of action.
[983D E] 2.4.
It is true that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it, and it is always open to the Government to rescind the notification.
[980B] State of Kerala vs K. G. Madhavan Pillai, ; ; State of M.P. vs V.P. Sharma, [1966]3 SCR557; Lt. Governor of H.P. vs Sri Avinash Sharma, [ ; ; Lachmi Narain vs Union of India,[ ; ; State of Bihar vs D. N. Ganguly & Ors., [ ; and Kamia Prasad Khetan vs Union of India, ; , referred to.
But when a notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the affected parties, it is clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
Such action in exercise of the implied 977 power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised subject to the like conditions within the scope of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
[983F] In the circumstances, the notification dated 20.1.1981 is liable to be quashed.
It shall be open to the Government to proceed after affording the slum dwellers an opportunity of being heard on the basis of the earlier notifications that were in force.
[983F G]


Input:
Civil Appeals Nos. 185 to 187 of 1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 13, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Misc.
Judicial Case No. 352 of 1957.
WITH Petitions Nos. 163 to 165 of 1959.
Petitions Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, Veda Vyasa and Naunit Lal, for the appellants/petitioners.
A. section R. Chari, D. P. Singh., M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and section C. Agarwala, for the respondents.
500 1961.
November 20.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.
The principal question raised in these appeals and petitions under article 32 of the Constitution is whether sugar cane falls within the term "green vegetables" and is therefore exempt from sales tax under the exemption given by the notification dated August 28, 1947, issued under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947, (Bihar 19 of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Act '.
After hearing the arguments in these appeals and petitions we announced our decision dismissing them with costs and we now proceed to give our reasons for the same.
The three appeals by special leave are brought by the assessee and relate to assessment of sales tax for three years, 1950 51, 1951 52 and 1952 53 for which the amount of sales tax levied was Rs. 28,866, Rs. 23,383 and Rs. 23,298 respectively.
Besides the three appeals the assessee company has filed three petitions under article 32 challenging the constitutionality of the assessments.
In this judgment the appellant and the petitioner is a private limited company and it will be termed "appellant" and the State of Bihar which is respondent will be termed the "respondent".
The appellant took an objection to the assessment and filed appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes and then a revision to the Board of Revenue and then at its instance the following question was referred by the Board of Revenue to the High Court for opinion: "Whether sugar cane is a green vegetable within the meaning of item 6 of notification No. 9884 FT dated 28 8 47 and as such exempt from taxation.
" The High Court answered the question against the appellant and held that "sugar cane" was not 501 included in the term "green vegetables" and it is the correctness of that answer which has been canvassed before us.
In the petitions under article 32 of the Constitution it was contended that the appellant being a producer of sugar cane was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act and therefore no tax was payable on sale of sugar cane by it.
The exemption under the Act is provided under section 6 of the Act which, at the relevant time, was as follows: section 6 "No tax shall be payable under this Act on the sale of any goods or class of goods specified in this behalf by the (State) Government by notification in the Official Gazette, subject to such conditions as may be mentioned in the notification: Provided no notification shall be issued under this section without giving in the Official Gazette such previous notice as the State Government may consider reasonable, of its intention to issue such notification.
" Under section 6 of the Act the notification relied upon was issued on August 28, 1947.
This was notification No. 9884 FT which was in the following terms: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar Act XIX of 1947), and in supersession of the previous notifications on the subject the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that no tax shall be payable under the said Act on the sale of goods specified in the second column of the schedule hereto annexed subject to the exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the third column thereof.
502 THE SCHEDULE Serial Description Exception subject to which the No. of goods.
exemption has been allowed.
1. . . . 2. . . . 3. . . . 4. . . . 5. . . . 6 Green vegetables Except when sold in sealed other than pota containers.
. . . . . . . . . . ." The question raised is that sugar cane falls within the term "green vegetables" in entry 6 of the Schedule and is therefore exempt from assessment to Sales tax.
In support of this contention counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court, The State of Bombay vs R. section Phadtara (1) where it was held that sugar cane is "fresh vegetable" and is therefore exempt from sales tax under a similar notification issued under the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
Changla C. J., there observed at page 496 as follows: "In its plain and natural meaning a "vegetable" clearly is wide enough to cover "sugar cane"; but what is urged by the Advocate General is that we must not give it that wide meaning but must give it the popular meaning as under stood by people who deal in vegetables or eat vegetables, and it is urged that from that narrow and restricted point of view sugar cane is not vegetable.
This is a taxing statue and if in favour of that construction which gives relief to the subject.
That was exactly the 503 approch of the Sales Tax Tribunal and in our opinion that approach was a very proper one." This observation is not in accord with the opinion given by this Court in Ramaytar Badhriprasad vs Assistant Sales tax Officer, Akola (1) in which under an almost identical entry it was held that "betel leaves" is not included in the term "vegetables".
After quoting with approval a passage from the judgment of the Nagpur High Court, Madhya Pradesh pan Merchants Association vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2) this court said: "the word "vegetable" in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance i.e. denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table.
" If that is the meaning of the word "vegetables" sugar cane cannot fail within entry 6 which relates to green vegetables.
In Webster 's dictionary "sugar cane" has been defined as "a grass extensively grown in tropical and warm regions for its sugar" and in Oxford dictionary it is defined as "a tall peronnial grass cultivated in tropical and sub tropical countries and forming the chief source of unmanufactured sugar".
Therefore it cannot be said that sugar cane falls within the definition of the words "green vegetables".
The second question which was raised before us and which arises in the petitions under article 32 is that the appellant company is not a "dealer" within the meaning of the word as defined in section 2(c) of the Act which is as follows: " "dealer" means any person who sells or supplies any goods (including goods sold or supplied in the execution of a contract) 504 whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any family or a Hindu joint family, the Government and any society club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members".
The words of this sub section are very wide and cover the case of the appellant and therefore this point is also without substance and must be rejected.
But it was argued that the definition of the word "dealer" in the Act which was amended by Bihar Annual Finance Act 1950 is applicable only for the financial year beginning April 1, 1950, and not for subsequent years and for that aid was sought from the preamble to the Bihar Annual Finance Act 1950.
That preamble is as follows: "whereas it is expedient to amend the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948, to levy a tax on passengers and goods carried by public service vehicles and public carries and to lay down rates on Sales Tax payable under Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947 to fix limit of taxable agricultural income to lay down rates of agricultural Income Tax Act and Super Tax chargeable under Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 for the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April 1950 and to make further provisions in connection with the finance of this State of Bihar".
The preamble cannot limit or change the meaning of the plain words of s.2(c) of the Act which apply to the case of the appellant and therefore the amended section is applicable to the present case.
It is an erroneous approach to the question to say that because of the words "for the financial year beginning on the first of April 1950" in the particular context in the preamble, the definition of the word "dealer" was amended only for one year Nothing has been shown indicating that section 505 (2)(i) of Bihar Annual Finance Act intended to effect a temporary amendment in the previous definition of the word "dealer" in cl(c) of s.2 of the Act.
The contention is therefore repelled.
It was also submitted that the assent of the President was not given to the Bihar Annual Finance Act 1950.
In our opinion that submission is equally without force because tax on sale of goods is a matter entirely within entry 54 of the State List and the amendment made in the definition of the word "dealer" in the Act did not require the assent of the President.
In our opinion the appeals and the petitions under article 32 are without merit and are therefore dismissed with costs.
One hearing fee.
Appeals and writ petitions dismissed.

Output:
Under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the Government issued a notification exempting certain goods from the 499 payment of sales tax, including "green vegetables other than potatoes, except when sold in sealed containers".
The appellant who was a producer of sugar can was assessed to sales tax.
He contended that sugar cane was a green vegetables and was exempted from tax and that he was not a dealer as defined in section 2 (c) of the Act and could not be assessed to sales tax. ^ Held, that sugar cane was not a green vegetable and was not exempted under the notification.
The word "vegetables" in taxing statutes was to be understood as in common parlance i.e. denoting class of vegetables which were grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and were used for the table.
The dictionaries defined sugar cane as a "grass." Ramavtar Budhaiprasad vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, ; , followed.
The State of Bombay vs R. section Phadtare, [1956] 7 section T. C. 495, disapproved.
Held, further, that the appellant was a dealer within the definition in section 2(c).
Section 2(c) was amended by the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950.
The amended was not a temporary amendment for only one year; the amended section was applicable to the present case.
The amending Act did not require the assent of the President as the matter fell entirely within entry 54 of the State List.


Input:
minal Appeal No. 150 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated October 18, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 60 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and order dated July 8, 1952, of the Court of Sessions Judge at Bareilly in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1952.
Daulat Ram Prem and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant, 658 Gyan Chand Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
February 14.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.
The appellant along with one Qudrat Ullah was tried for the murder of one Sabir.
The latter was tried under section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment, and the former under section 302 I.P.C.
Both the accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly.
But the State took an appeal to the Allahabad High Court against the appellant only and the judgment of acquittal in his case was reversed and he was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to 'transportation for life '.
Against the judgment of the High Court the appellant has brought this appeal by Special Leave.
The facts which have given rise to the appeal are that Sabir was murdered on the 11th May, 195 1, at about 6 30 p.m.
The First Information Report was made by Qudrat Ullah the other accused at 6 45 p.m. the same day, i.e., within about 15 minutes of the occurrence.
The prosecution case was that there was an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant near the shop of the First Informant, Qudrat Ullah.
The cause of the quarrel was that on the evening of the occurrence while Qudrat Ullah was sitting in his shop and the deceased was sitting just below the shop, the appellant came out of his house and on seeing him, the deceased asked him as to why he was in such a " dishevelled condition ", which annoyed the appellant and gave rise to an exchange of abuses.
On hearing this noise, the prosecution witnesses arrived at the spot and saw the appellant and the deceased grappling with each other.
The appellant is stated to have asked Qudrat Ullah to hand over a knife to him which Qudrat Ullah did; this knife is exhibit I II ', with which the appellant stabbed the deceased and then fled away.
As a result of the injuries the deceased fell down infront of Qudrat Ullah 's shop; some witnesses have stated that he fell on the wooden plank in front of the shop.
Qudrat Ullah picked up the knife which had been 659 dropped by the appellant, put the deceased in a rickshaw and took him to the hospital from where he went to the Police Station and made the First Information Report.
An objection has been taken to the admissibility of this report as it was made by a person who was a co accused.
A First Information Report is not a substantivepiece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under section 145 of that Act.
It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.
In this case, therefore, it is not evidence.
The Sub Inspector went to the spot, started investigation and arrested the appellant the same evening at his house.
The postmortem examination of the deceased showed injuries on the person of the deceased and, according to the doctor.
, death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the punctured wound in the chest, causing injuries to the lungs and these injuries could be caused with a sharp edged weapon.
The appellant and the deceased both belong to a sect of Jogis.
Evidence discloses that the deceased and the appellant were quite friendly with each other, and so were the deceased and Qudrat Ullah, who is a butcher and had a shop which is a part of his house.
Adjacent to the shop is the house of the appellant.
Eye witnesses of the occurrence were Yad Ali, P.W. 1, Banne, P.W. 2 and Mohd. Ahmed, P.W. 3.
Having been told by the sister of the deceased as to the occurrence, Ashraft, P.W. 4 came to the spot later and found the deceased lying unconscious.
Shakir, P.W. 5, younger brother of the deceased, on arriving near the shop of Qudrat Ullah heard the appellant and the deceased exchanging abuses, but was not a witness of the assault ' as just at that time he had gone, at the request of Qudrat Ullah, to fill his Chillum for the hookka and when he came back he found the deceased lying unconscious and the appellant running away towards his house.
The evidence of Yad Ali P. W. 1, is that he heard an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant and when he moved about 4 or 5 paces he 660 saw them grappling with each other.
The appellant had the deceased ,in his grip", he asked Qudrat Ullah to hand over a knife to him which the latter did and with it the appellant stabbed the deceased and then went away to his house.
The statement of Banne is similar and so is the statement of Mohd. Ahmed, P. W. 3.
This evidence was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and he acquitted both the accused.
The State took an appeal only against the appellant which was allowed by the High Court.
It held " We may concede that the eye witnesses have falsely implicated Qudrat Ullah by deposing that he handed over his knife to the respondent on his demand.
There was no enmity between him and Sabir and he bad no motive to get him killed by the respondent.
It does not at all appear probable that after abetting the murder of Sabir he at once took him on a rickshaw to the hospital and from there went at once to the police station and lodged a report against the respondent.
This conduct of Qudrat Ullah is so inconsistent with the part said to have been played by him in the occurrence that we have little hesitation in rejecting the evidence about the part played by him.
" The High Court, however, accepted the.
testimony of the eye witnesses as against the appellant 's guilt and observed: "We are satisfied that the prosecution has fully established the, case against the respondent.
There is not the slightest doubt about his guilt.
The presumption of innocence has been fully rebutted by the prosecution.
The case against him does not become doubtful merely because the learned Sessions Judge said that there was a doubt about his guilt." The learned Judges also came to the conclusion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was ;one " which no reasonable person could have taken.
It was a wholly erroneous view of the evidence which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice inasmuch as a murderer escapes punishment",.
In the circumstances of the case and considering that there was some provocation, the High Court sentenced the appellant to I transportation for life.
661 There is a passage in the Judgment of the High Court which appears to us to be disconsolate and indicative of a wrong approach in deciding the guilt of an accused person.
Although the learned Judges recognised the principle that the onus was not on the accused, yet one of the observations is such that it comes perilously near to putting the burden on the accused if it does not actually do so.
The High Court has said: The respondent himself did not have the courage to say that he did not find them at the spot.
If 'he were innocent, he must have come out of his house immediately on hearing the noise and must have known who was present there and; who was not" This passage is so destructive of the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence as to the presumed innocence of an accused person till otherwise proved that it has become necessary to reiterate the rule stated by eminent authorities ". that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner 's guilt subject to any statutory exception.
" it was next contended that the witnesses had falsely implicated Qudrat Ullah and because of that the Court should have rejected the testimony of these witnesses as against the appellant also.
The well known maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was relied upon by the appellant.
The argument raised was that because the witnesses who had also deposed against Qudrat Ullah by saying that he had handed over the knife to the appellant had not been believed by the Courts below as against him, the High Court should not have accepted the evidence of these witnesses to convict the appellant.
This maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law.
It is merely a rule of caution.
All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded.
One American author has stated: (1) Woolmington vs The Director of Public Prosecutions, ; 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] validity. . and secondly, in point of utility because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any, event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore, it is a superfluous form of words.
It is also in practice pernicious. . " (1) The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called " a mandatory rule of evidence ".
Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a passage from an unreported judgment of the Privy Council, I Chaubarja Singh vs Bhuneshwari Prasal Pal.
" The defendants own evidence and that of several of his witnesses is of no use to, him.
He cannot contend that any court of law can place reliance on the oath of people who have admittedly given false evidence upon the other branches of the case.
" This passage is a very slender foundation, if at all, for conferring on the doctrine the status of anything higher than a rule of caution and the Privy Council cannot be said to have given their weighty approval to any such controversial rule which has been termed as " worthless", "absolutely false as a maxim of life" and "in practice pernicious" in works of undoubted authority on the law of evidence (2).
The High Court was not unmindful of what the witnesses stated as to Qudrat Ullah 's part in the commission of the offence and having taken that into consideration, it said: " While the learned Sessions Judge was right in acquitting Qudrat Ullah, he was completely wrong in acquitting the respondent of whose guilt there was not the slightest doubt.
The direct evidence made out a clear case against him and there was no sound reason for disregarding it.
" After discussing the evidence of the witnesses and the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant the High Court held " there is not the slightest doubt about his guilt." (1) Wigmore on Evidence Vol.
III para 1009.
(2j Wigmere Vol.
III para 1009.
663 It was because of the above two contentions raised by counsel for the appellant and because it was a case of reversal of a judgment of acquittal that we allowed counsel to go into the evidence which he analysed and drew our attention to its salient features and to the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the improbabilities of the case; but we are satisfied that the learned Judges were justified in coming to the conclusion they did and the view of the trial judge was rightly displaced.
Upon a review of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we have come ,to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly convicted.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is affirmed.
A appeal dismissed.

Output:
A first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under section I57 Of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under section 145 of that Act.
It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses, It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the innocence of an accused person is presumed till otherwise proved.
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused subject to any statutory exception.
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India, nor has it come to occupy the status of a rule of law.
It is merely a rule of caution.
All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded.
The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not a mandatory rule of evidence,