Criminal Appeal No 111 and 477 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 1941978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 661 of 1975
NP Midha and BD Sharma for the Appellant in Crl
A No 111 of 1979
Prithvi Raj Prashant Choudhary and D Bhandari for the Respondent in Crl
A No 111 of 1979 and Appellant in Crl
A No 477 of 1979
M Qamaruddin and Mrs M Qamaruddin for the Respondent in Crl
A No 477 of 1979
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI J
In Criminal Case No 3 of 1975 three persons were put up for trial before the learned Special Judge Sultanpur UP
The case arose out of the death of one Ram Dhiraj Tiwari in police custody
Accused No 1 Rafiuddin Khan Respondent in Criminal Appeal No 477 of 1979 was the Sub Inspector of Police Station Kure Bhar in District Sul tanpur at all material times during the commission of the crime
Accused No 2 Shamsher Ali since acquitted was posted at the said police station as Beat Constable No 3
His companion Accused No 3 Appellant in Criminal Appeal No 111 of 1979 was the Head Moharrir of the said police station
Crime No 71 of 1971 under Section 395 IPC was registered at the said police station on 255
1971 concern ing a dacoity committed at Village Khara within 32 the jurisdiction of the said police station
In that connec tion one Jagdamba was arrested on 2091971
During interro gation by AI the said suspect is alleged to have madea confessional statement involving Ram Dhiraj Tiwari
On the basis of this information A 1 directed A2 and Ram Jas PW 6 and Harakh both police chowkidars to apprehend Ram Dhiraj and produce him before him
Pursuant thereto A2 and his companions apprehended Ram Dhiraj from his residence in village Khajapur on 19101971 at about 1100 am in the presence of his mother Kamaraji PW 7 sister s husband Ram Niranjan Misra PW 8 and labourer Jiyalal PW 9
After his arrest Ram Dhiraj was brought to police station Kure Bhar at about 400 pm on the same day and handed over to A1
PW 8 and Ram Baran Dubey PW 10 are stated to have followed him to the police station
It is alleged that soon charge of A1 he was given a severe beating with lathi and dandas by A1 and two constables whose identity is not established with a view to extracting a confessional statement from him
When PW 8 and PW 10 tried to intervene
 A1 demanded a sum of Rs2000 from them to refrain from ill treating Ram Dhiraj
Thereupon PW 8 went to Village Pure Neelkanth three miles away to fetch Bindeshwari Prasad Shukla PW 5 the husband of Ram Dhiraj s eider sister
On the arrival of PW 5 at the police station A1 is alleged to have repeated his demand of Rs2000
Since the bribe was not paid A1 and his two compan ions renewed the torture with vengeance which lasted till about 9 or 10 pm
As a result of the merciless beating Ram Dhiraj was badly injured
It is alleged that the fact that he was apprehended from his village and was brought to the police station on 19101971 was not entered in the general diary register but a false entry was posted in the said general diary register regarding his arrest on the next day ie 20101971 at about 600 am from near a culvert in village Hanna Harora by A2 and his two chowkidars
The defence version was that as he tried to resist arrest A2 and his two companions beat him up as a result of which he sustained the injuries in question
Another entry was made in the same general diary on the same day purporting to transfer Ram Dhiraj to police station Sadar for admission to the District Jail
General Diary Entry No 14 was made to show that Ram Dhiraj was sent from Sardar police station at about 1215 noon for admission to the District Jail as he had sustained injuries
It however transpired later that Ram Dhiraj died at about 400 pm on the same day while he was being taken to the residence of one of the Magistrates at Sultanput for remand
On his demise his dead body was taken to Kotwali Sultanpur where an entry No 30 regarding his death was made in the general diary at about 420 pm
On 21101971 an inquest 33 was made on the dead body and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination
PW 1 Dr Mitra performed the autopsy and found as many as 28 ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased
The prosecution case against A1 was that he was respon sible for having beaten the suspect Ram Dhiraj in the compa ny of two others which resulted in as many as 28 injuries to which he ultimately succumbed
It was also alleged that he had demanded a bribe of Rs2000 to desist from meting out third degree punishment to the suspect
He was therefore charged under Section 304 330 201 218 34 IPC while his companion A3 was charged under Section 201 and 218 IPC
All the three accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried
They however did not deny the fact that Ram Dhiraj died in police custo dy
The case set up by A 1 was that he was away from the police station between 500 pm and 730 pm on 19101971 and therefore the allegation that he had tor tured Ram Dhiraj is fabricated and wholly false
A2 admitted the fact that Ram Dhiraj was arrested outside his village house at Khajapur on 19101971 and was brought to the police station Kure Bhar on the same day at about 400 pm
He however denied having caused any injury to him during arrest
A3 denied the prosecution allegation that he had deliberately and wilfully posted false entries in the Gener al Diary to help A 1
The learned Special Judge before whom the accused were tried came to the conclusion that the deceased was arrested from his residence on 19101971 as alleged by the prosecu tion and not from near the culvert of village Hanna Harora on 20101971 that no beating was given to him at the time of his arrest and that he was beaten in police station Kure Bhar where he was taken on 19101971 itself after his arrest by A1 and two other constables who could not be identified
He also found that the fact that he was brought to the police station on 19101971 was deliberately sup pressed and A3 omitted to perform his duty by not posting an entry in that behalf in the General Diary and instead post ing a false entry No 10 Exh
Ka 13 on the next day 20101971
He also found that a false entry was posted in the diary to show that he was sent to Sadar police station where he died before admission to jail
Lastly he found that A2 had counter signed the general diary entry No 10 without knowing the contents thereof
On facts found proved the trial court convicted A1 under Section 304 Part II and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Section 330 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 201 and 21834 and 161 IPC and 34 under Section 51d read with Section 52 of the Preven tion of Corruption Act 1947 and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years on each count all substantive sentences to run concurrently
A2 was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him
A3 was however convicted under Sections 201 and 218 IPC and was ordered to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years on each count
The sub stantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently
Both the convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No 661 of 1975 in the High Court
The State did not question the acquittal of A2
The High Court accepted the defence version that A1 was not at the police station on 19101971 till 730 pm as proved through DWI and DW2 and therefore the prosecution version was unacceptable
It also found that the three prosecution witnesses PW5 PW8 and PW 10 were not eye witnesses to the incident and hence their story about beat ing in the police station and the demand of bribe cannot be accepted
It lastly held that A 1 could not be held respon sible for the omission to post an entry in the general diary about the arrival of the deceased to the police station at 400 pm as he himself had returned to the police station at 730 pm
On this line of reasoning the High Court al lowed A1 s appeal and set aside the conviction on all counts
The High Court however maintained the conviction of A3 but reduced the sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months
Criminal Appeal No 111 of 1979 is preferred by A3 questioning his conviction while Criminal Appeal No 477 of 1979 is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of A1
As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment
We think it would be convenient to dispose them of by this common judgment
The fact that Ram Dhiraj died of injuries received by him after his arrest and while he was in police custody is not seriously disputed
The prosecution version is that he was beaten in the police station on 19101971 by A1 and his two companions after he was arrested from his residence and brought to the police station
The defence version on the other hand is that the deceased was arrested on 20101971 by A2 and his two companions from near a culvert in village Hanna Harora and he was beaten up by them as he resisted arrest
Of course A2 has denied this in his statement re corded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Be that as it may both the prosecution as well as the defence version suggest that the deceased had received a beating at the hands of the police after his arrest
The evidence of PW1 Dr Misra shows that the deceased had received as many as 28 injuries
by some blunt weapon or weapons which re sulted in his death due to 35 shock and haemorrhage on the afternoon of 2010197 1
The trial court has come to a firm conclusion that these in juries were caused to the deceased in the police station after his arrest
The High Court also opines that the number of injuries speaks that most probably he had not received those injuries only during arrest and that he was subjected to severe assault sometime after his arrest
Even this halting finding recorded by the High Court shows that both the courts felt that the deceased was seriously beaten while in police custody
The fact that Ram Dhiraj died a homicidal death is therefore rightly not contested before us
Having regard to the rival versions the crucial ques tion which must be answered is regarding the date time and place of arrest
It is not in dispute that an offence of dacoity at village Khera was registered at Police Station Kure Bhar on 2551971
One Jagdamba was arrested in that connection on 2091971
A1 was investigating that crime
In the course of interrogation by A1 Jagdamba is stated to have revealed the name of Ram Dhiraj as his accomplice
The evidence of PW 6 Chowkidar Ram Jas is that A1 had directed A2 to arrest Ram Dhiraj and produce him before him
A2 PW 6 and Chowkidar Harakh then went to fetch Ram Dhiraj
In the absence of any specific information the first place to visit to locate the wanted man would be his residence
PW 6 also deposed that the police party went in search of the deceased to his village and apprehended him from near his residence
However the evidence of PW 6 was challenged on the ground that he had in his statement before MM Swarup Executive Magistrate affirmed the defence of AI that the deceased was apprehended from near a culvert in village Harma Harora on 20101971
The learned trial Judge nega tived this contention as the certified copy of the statement said to have been made to MM Swarup in an enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inadmissi ble in evidence since the said enquiry could not be equated to a judicial proceedings and was therefore inadmissible in evidence
He was of the view that the same could not be admitted in evidence under Section 90 of the Evidence Act
In this view the proper course was to call for the original statement confront the witness with the contradictory part and on proof use it as evidence to discredit the witness
We agree with the learned trial judge that the contents of a certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 176 of the Code would not be admissible in evidence unless the contradiction is proved by putting it to the witness in cross examination and the maker has had an opportunity to admit or deny it
In our view it has to be proved like any other previous statemeat
The trial judge also opined that even if the statement was admis 36 sible under Section 90 Evidence Act that statement per se cannot efface his substantive evidence in court for the simple reason that at the time of recording of that state ment he was under the direct influence of A1 his superior and was therefore not a free agent
The learned trial judge was therefore of the opinion that the contradiction even if proved cannot militate against the truth of his statement
The High Court has endorsed the finding of the trial court that as PW 6 was a chowkidar under the adminis trative control of A1 he could be prevailed upon to support the defence theory in t he inquiry under Section 176
The High Court also held that the short signature of PW 7 as Jassi  in the General Diary Entry No 10 must have been obtained by A3 to add sanctity to the defence version
The High Court finally stated that even if absolute reliance is not placed on the evidence of PW 6 in this behalf his evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses viz PW 7 Karamraji PW 8 Ram Niranjan Misra and PW 9 Jai Lal the mother brother in law and labourer of the deceased
These three witnesses have also deposed that the deceased was arrested from his village Khajapur at about 1100 am on 19101971
The High Court has rightly ob served that barring minor discripancies in their evidence as to dress of members of the police party presence of others etc there is nothing brought out in their cross examina tion to discredit their evidence in this behalf
The prose cution also examined PW 3 Baij Nath and PW 4 Mewa Lal who have their shops near the culvert of village Hanna Harora to negative the defence version regarding the arrest of the deceased from there
Therefore both the courts have record ed a concurrent finding of fact that the deceased was ar rested on 19101971 at about 1100 am from his village Khajapur
That means that the entry in the general diary that the deceased was arrested on 20101971 and was brought to the police station later can be brushed aside as false
The need to make a false entry speaks for itself
The next question is where when and by whom were the injuries inflicted on the deceased
The High Court observes that the medical evidence on record shows that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused on the evening of 19101971
In fact according to the High Court the medical evidence lends credence to the prosecution case that the deceased was arrested on 19101971
The High Court holds as under After considering the injuries of the deceased I have not the least doubt in my mind that those injuries were not caused to him during arrest and that he was beaten some 37 times after his arrest and before he was sent to jail from police station Kure Bhar
There is therefore no doubt that the High Court reached a firm finding that the arrest was made on 19101971 at about 1100 am from village Khajapur and the injuries noticed by the medical officer on the person of the deceased at the time of the autopsy were inflicted after his arrest and not during the course of arrest
Now it is not in dispute that A 1 was serving as the Station Officer of police station Kure Bhar on the 192010197 1
He was in charge of the investigation of the dacoity case in which Jagdamba was arrested
It was he who had interrogated Jagdamba and had secured a confessional statement from him
The information divulged by Jagdamba necessitated the arrest of the deceased
It is therefore reasonable to infer that AI would interrogate the deceased also
Since the arrest was made from village Khajapur the presence of PW 7 PW 8 and PW 9 at the time of the arrest cannot be doubted
PW 8 and PW 10 deposed that they had followed the deceased to the police station after his ar rest
PW 8 the brother in law of the deceased and PW 10 have deposed that after the deceased was taken to the police station he was subjected to third degree treatment by AI and two policemen whom they have not identified
Both have stated on oath that A 1 and his two unidentified companions beat the deceased with lathi and danda to extract a confes sion from him and when they entreated A 1 not to beat the deceased he demanded Rs2000 from them
PW 8 then went to village Desarwa of Pure Nilkanth to fetch PW 5 the husband of the eider sister of the deceased
On the arrival of PW 5 at the police station he too requested A1 not to beat the deceased but Ai reiterated his demand for Rs2000
When the witness expressed his inability to meet the demand AI resumed the ill treatment to the deceased
It is true that PW 5 and PW 8 were the brother in law of the deceased and PW 10 his neighbour but that by itself without anything more was not sufficient to doubt their testimony which receives corroboration from medical evidence
We are therefore of the opinion that unless there are sound grounds to reject their evidence it would not be proper to brush aside their evidence on the specious plea that they are interested witnesses
Even though the High Court came to the conclusion that the deceased was beaten after his arrest the High Court refused to place reliance on the direct testimony of these three witnesses insofar as the involvement of A1 is con cerned
The first reason assigned is that since 38 the village of PW 5 is 11 or 12 miles from Khajapur which in turn is about 10 miles from Kure Bhar it is not possible that he could have reached the police station by about 430 pm
In the first place the exact time of arrival of de ceased to the police station is not known
Secondly when the witnesses spoke about the time factor they merely mentioned the approximate time and not the exact time of PW 8 s depar ture and return to the police station with PW 5
We are therefore of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecu tion witnesses cannot be thrown overboard on such an infirm ground
The High Court has also cast doubts on the evidence of PW 5 on the ground that he told a deliberate lie that there was no sentry at the police station to make his entry in the police station probable
This too appears to us to be a weak reason for discarding his evidence
His presence at the police station is established by the telegram that he sent to the superior police officers complaining about the beat ing given to the deceased
We therefore do not think that the High Court was justified in refusing to act on his evidence on this ground
In the application exhibit Ka 3 the name of A2 was mentioned as one of the constable who was assisting A1 in beating the deceased to extract a confession from him
However in the substantive evidence the witness did not name A2 but merely stated that A1 and two other constables had beaten the deceased
The High Cort therefore inferred that he had wrongly named A2 as one of the assailants in exhibit Ka 3 and was therefore not a reliable witness
But both in the telegram and application exhibit Ka 3 the name of A1 is men tioned
The omission to name A2 as one of the constables involved in the beating cannot absolve A1
We are there fore inclined to think that the High Court was not right in refusing to act on the evidence of the witness on such consideration
The High Court rejects the evidence of the three prose cution witnesses on the ground that the telegram was sent by PW 5 as late as 2310
In our opinion the High Court failed to appreciate that 19th and 20th were lost in trying to secure the release of the deceased from AI
After the suspect died on the 20th the next day ie 21st was lost in post mortem examination and securing the dead body of the deceased for funeral
His evidence discloses that the dead body was not delivered to him till 430 pm
On that day he went to village Khajapur and broke the news of death to PW 7 and other family members
He has deposed that he sent the telegram only after he received threats from A 1
The trial court has discussed this aspect of 39 the case in detail and has rightly pointed out that it was a difficult decision to take for PW 5 as he may not like to incur the wrath of A1
But when A1 threatened him he was left with no choice but to inform his superiors
The High Court with respect has failed to properly appreciate and assess the situation
After all everyone thinks twice before deciding to make so serious a complaint against a police officer
We do not think there was so serious a delay as to throw out the evidence of the three witnesses on that ground
PW 10 s evidence has been rejected on a very flimsy
ground
He is the neighbours of the deceased
He was at the police station upto 700 or 800 pm and claims to have seen A1 beating the deceased
His evidence is rejected on the ground that he was interested in getting the policemen punished because the deceased was beaten to death while in police custody
It is further stated that all others associ ated with him are keen to see that somebody gets punished for the assault on the deceased
We find it difficult to comprehend why this witness would falsely involve A1 if he was not responsible for the injuries caused to the deceased
The conduct of this witness is branded as unnatural because he did not go to inform PW 7 and others about the death of the suspect
Since PW 5 and PW 8 were aware of the death
There was no need for PW 10 to inform the family members of the deceased as he would be justified in believing that PW 5 and PW 8 must have informed them
We are therefore of the view that the High Court had rejected the evidence of PW 10 on thoroughly untenable grounds
That brings us to the question whether the alibi set up by A1 can come to his rescue
In this connection reliance is placed on the evidence of DW 1 Jaswant Singh Station Officer Machlishahr Police Station
He claims to have come to Kure Bhar on 19101971 for investigation of an offence under Section 363366 IPC of his police station
He wants us to believe that he was at the Kure Bhar police station from 500 pm to 930 pm
According to him A1 was not at the police station till about 730 pm
Reliance is placed on the general diary entry dated 19101971 to show that A 1 had left the police station at about 1030 am for Tikar and had returned to the police station at 730 am
This entry is proved through DW 2
Now according to DW 1 even though he had come to Kure Bhar for investigation he him self remained at the police station throughout and sent his men with ASI II of Kure Bhar to Dilawar Ka Purwa for investigation
He wants us to believe that he came from his police station to investigate a crime but kept sitting at Kure Bhar police station throughout from 500 pm to 930 pm
Is this natural conduct The obvious reason for so stating 40 is to discredit PW 5 PW 8 and PW 10 who have in unmistaka ble terms stated that A1 was at the police station and had beaten the deceased
DW 1 stand belied by the general diary entry made at his police station on 20101971 to the effect that on reaching Kure Bhar he took ASI II of that police station and went to village Dilawar ka Purwa for investigation and returned to his police station at 400 pm
According to the said entry from Dilawar ka Purwa he went to Sultanpur where he passed the night left for Ram nager next morning and returned to his police station via Durgaganj
The learned trial judge dealt with this part of the defence evidence thus It is also improbable of belief that once station officer Jaswant Singh had taken care to come to Kurebhar in order to make the investigation of the crime of his police station he had leisurely lingered on at PS Kurebhar and not person ally proceeded to make the investigation of the said case
The learned trial judge observed that he appears to have come forward to help a member of his own fraternity
The learned trial judge therefore came to the conclusion If general diary entries Nos 15 and 21 may have been falsely incorporated where is the guarantee that the gener al diary entry No 17 which falls in between these may not have been falsely incorporated
The learned trial judge also felt that it was not possible to believe that an important police officer like A 1 would spend the whole day from 1030 am to 730 pm inquiring about an application at Village Tiker
The learned judge in the High Court considers the ap proach of the learned trial judge unacceptable because Sub Inspector Juswant Singh has stated that he himself had stayed at Police Station Kurebhar and had sent other members of his party and an ASI of Police Station Kurebhar to Dilawar Ka Purwa
The mere fact that SI Jaswant Singh happens to be a Sub Inspector of Police is no ground to reject his testimony
After all there should be some reason for a police officer posted at police station Machlishahr at Jaunpur to falsely depose for defending Rafi 41 Uddin Khan appellant
If SI Jaswant Singh s evidence is disbelieved in the present case he himself incurs the risk of losing his job This line of reasoning does not commend to us
We fail to understand how the learned judge could persuade himself to accept the evidence of DW 1 on the specious plea that if he did not tell the truth he ran the risk of losing his job
The leaned trial judge gave sound reasons for disbelieving the evidence of DW 1 that he did not stir out of Kure Bhar police station from 500 pm to 930 pm
The High Court failed to appreciate that on realising that the condition of the deceased had deteriorated a false entry was made by A3 at the behest of A1 to show that i the deceased was not arrested on 19101971 nor was he brought to the police station Kure Bhar by about 400 pm and ii that he was actually arrested by A2 from near the culvert of village Hanna Harora on 201071 and was given a beating before actual arrest a fact which is denied by A2 in his statement under Section 313 of the Code
Thus the foundation for absolving himself from the responsibility of having ill treated the deceased was laid
The trail court rightly holds that there is no guarantee that entry 17 is accurate when entries 15 and 21 are found to be false
The entry in the case diary regarding crime No 28 of Machlishahr recorded by ASI Bankey Bihari who had accompanied DW 1 clearly men tions that when they reached Kure Bhar they met the Thana Adhiyakshakh ie A 1 at about 500 pm which negatives the theory that A1 had left the police station at 1030 am and had not returned till 730 pm of 1910
Without coming to grips with the circumstances pointed out by the trial court for disbelieving DW 1 the High Court surpris ingly accepted his evidence as gospel truth only because he ran the risk of losing his job
The High Court should have realised that cases are not unknown where police officer have given inaccurate accounts to secure a conviction or to help out a colleague from a tight situation of his creation
The High Court should also have realised that it is general ly difficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipu late as in this case
It is only in a few cases such as the present one that some direct evidence is available
In our view the reasons assigned by the High Court are too weak to stand judicial scrutiny
We are aware that so far as A 1 is concerned we are called upon to interfere in an acquittal appeal
Since it is said that an acquittal 42 reinforces the presumption of innocence we have carefully considered the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the conviction of A 1
We are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the High Court completely misdirected itself
We have dealt with the facts at some length to justify our interference under Article 136 of the Constitu tion
Had we not been fully satisfied that gross injustice was done because the High Court misdirected itself we would not have interfered in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution
For the above reasons we dismiss Appeal No 111 of 1979 preferred by A3 as we are satisfied that his conviction is correctly recorded
We allow the State s appeal No 477 of 1979 and restore the conviction of A1 recorded by the trial court by setting aside his acquittal by the High Court
On the question of sentence a fervent appeal was made by his counsel that having regard to the passage of time and the changed circumstances A1 should not be sent to jail and the sentence of fine should suffice
We are unable to accede to this request
The offence is of a serious nature aggravated by the fact that it was committed by a person who is sup posed to protect the citizens and not misuse his uniform and authority to brutally assault them while in his custody
Death in police custody must be seriously viewed for other wise we will help take a stride in the direction of police raj
It must be curbed with a heavy hand
The punishment should be such as would deter others from indulging in such behaviour
There can be no room for leniency
We therefore do not think we would be justified in reducing the punish ment imposed by the trial court
A1 is on bail
Since the trial court s order of his conviction and sentence is restored he will surrender to his bail within a week s time to serve his sentence


Summary:
The respondent No 1 a Central Board constituted under the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act 1936 by a notification under section 51 Of the Act dated February 26 1944 took into  management the properties of a Darga Sharif and on October 18 1946 the appellants three of the five members of the Managing Committee of the said Darga Sharif brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises for a declaration that the Darga properties did not constitute a waqf within the meaning of the Act and that the respondent No 1 had no lawful authority to issue the notification and assume management of the said properties
It was urged on behalf of respondent No 1 that the suit had not been brought within one year as prescribed by section 52 of the Act and was as such barred by limitation and that since the notice prescribed by section 53 Of the Act had admittedly not been served on the respondent the suit was incompetent
It was found that in an earlier suit brought with the sanction of the Advocate General against the Managing Committee for their removal and the framing of a fresh scheme a decree had been passed against the appellants on October 16 1941 and it directed them not to interfere with the affairs of the Darga as members of the said Committee and to comply with the direction removing them from office
On appeal the said decree was set aside by the Chief Court on March 7 1946
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that section 52 Of the Act had no application and even if it had the suit was within time by virtue of the provisions of section 15 of the Limitation Act
Held that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants must be negatived
The expression  any person interested in a waqf  used in section 52 Of the United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act 1936 pro perly construed means any person interested in a transaction that is held to be waqf by the Commissioner of Waqfs appointed under the Act and as such the appellants fell within that category
Where a literal construction defeats the object of the statute and makes part of it meaningless it is legitimate to adopt a liberal construction that gives a meaning to the entire provision and makes it effective
Chaturbhuj Mohanlal vs Bhicam Chand Choroyia  Sons  Mathu Kutty vs Varoe Kutty AIR 1950 Mad
4 and Lal Chand vs Messrs Basanta Mal Devi Dayal  Ors  referred to
Rules of limitation are arbitrary in nature and in construing hem it is not permissible to import equitable considerations and effect must be given to tile strict grammatical meaning of he words used
Section 15 of the Limitation Act can be attracted only where a suit has been stayed by an injunction or order and the test would be whether its institution would or would not be an act in contempt of the court s order
Nagendra Nath Dey V Suresh Chandra Dey 1932 34 Bom
R 1065 Narayan Jivangouda vs Puttabai 1944 47 Bom
LR Beti Maharani vs The Collector of Etawah All 198 and Sundaramma vs Abdul Khader Mad 490 relied on
Musammat Basso Kaur vs Lala Dhua Singh 1888 15 IA 211 held inapplicable
The order of the court in the earlier suit was neither an injunction nor an order of the nature contemplated by section 15 Of the Limitation Act and so that section was inapplicable
Offerings made from time to time by the devotees visiting the Darga Sharif were by their very nature an income of the Darga and failure to mention them in the notification under section 51 Of the Act did not render the notification defective
The provision as to notice under section 53 Of the Act was applicable to suits in respect of acts of the Central Board as well as suits for any relief in respect of the waqf