IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15931 of 2005 RAM BHAWAN SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 6. 29.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar and the counsel for Union of India. When it is not known to the authorities as to who had participated in 1942 movement so as to be honoured with the distinction and privileges of freedom fighter, they have to definitely make such consideration in the light of the policy fixed by the Government of India. The Government of India, therefore, has prescribed certain norms, one of them being that there has to be some evidence to show of an active participation in the freedom struggle in the year 1942. For that purpose when the Government of India had fixed the norms it had also laid down submission of the application in a prescribed proforma, part II whereof deals with imprisonment containing the following details: (a) Details of the case in which tried and awarded imprisonment. (b) Name and place of the Court which tried the case and awarded 2 punishment. (c) Sentence awarded (d) Actual period of imprisonment suffered and (e) Evidence, namely (i) Court Judgment (ii)Jail Certificate (iii)Co-prisoner Certificate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed such an application as is contained in Annexure 14 to the rejoinder affidavit some time on 14.8.1981. The said application as in respect of column no.11 containing the details of imprisonment was filled up by him in the following manner: (a)1942 ds Lora=rk vkUnksyu esa Hkkx ysus ds dkj.k ltk nh x;h Fkh A (b)Lis’ky eftLVzsV lnj iVuk ds }kjk ltk nh x;h Fkh A (c)9 efguk (d)1.1.42 ls 1-8-1943 rd (e) okn esa izLrqr dh tk;xh A These information, therefore, in respect of imprisonment were not complete and therefore, the condition imposed in note portion of the application was not complete. In the application, which was filed 3 by the petitioner in August, 1981 he had declared his age to be 60 years but subsequently in a new pension form filled up by him in the year 1989 he had declared his date of birth to be 1.3.1920. The specific date of birth of 1.3.1920 would go to suggest that it was recorded somewhere either in the school records or some other records but the petitioner has not produced any certificate showing his date of birth to be 1st of March, 1920. The petitioner’s medical examination was held for the purposes of determination of his age and the medical board in the report dated 23.11.2002 has held him to be aged between 74 years to 76 years on the date of examination which would make his date of birth between 23rd of November, 1926 to 23rd of November, 1928. The discrepancy in age of almost 6 to 8 years in declaration of the petitioner thus cannot be explained unless the petitioner produces his certificate showing date of birth of 1st of March, 1920 on the basis of which he had declared his age at the time of filing of the application in August, 1981 (around 60 years). 4 This Court has given indulgence to the petitioner to produce any cogent evidence with regard to his date of birth. He has failed to do so and has taken a plea before this Court that the petitioner has never gone to any school, he is an illiterate person and his date of birth has nowhere been recorded. In such a situation, the impugned order which has been passed on an over all consideration of the matter cannot be said to either arbitrary or illegal. In a case of present nature where initial burden to prove requirement of fulfillment of the policy regarding grant of pension to freedom fighter has to be discharged by the person claiming it, this Court must hold that on account of giving incomplete information either with regard to his imprisonment or with regard to even his age, the impugned decision cannot be faulted. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner that there was a certificate of co-prisoner which should have been accepted for holding that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in a particular case, G.R.Case No. 884/1942 cannot be 5 accepted because not a single chit of paper of the criminal case has been produced before the authority either in the form of F.I.R. or in the form of charge sheet or the judgment. In that view of the matter, a mere certificate of co-prisoner that he had seen the petitioner to be in custody between the period 1st November, 1942 to 30th May, 1943 can hardly be the full and final proof of conviction and sentence of the petitioner in the aforementioned criminal case G.R.Case No. 884/1942. Thus, on over all consideration this Court would find that the petitioner could not have been given the benefit of doubt either on account of his claim of having gone imprisonment for a period of six months in a criminal case relating to freedom struggle or on account of his age. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/