Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 328 OF 2009 (MS) Vijay Prakash Pandey ……Petitioner. Versus District Magistrate, Almora and others. …Respondents. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 8th July, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a Contractor. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had requested the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranikhet, district Almora for issuance of a Character Certificate to him, which has been referred by him vide order dated 10.2.2009 by the Joint Magistrate, Ranikhet, district Almora, by stating that he was involved in a Criminal Case No. 262 of 1985 and had been held guilty under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order of the Magistrate dated 21.9.1991 and in these circumstances, the character certificate cannot be granted to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 21.9.1991 of the Magistrate, in the said criminal case, had released the petitioner on probation. It is true that vide order dated 21.9.1991, the learned Magistrate, Ranikhet had though convicted the petitioner under 2 Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. but he had not passed any sentence of punishment but in fact exercising power under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. had released the petitioner on probation of good conduct. There is no other conviction or sentence against the petitioner for any criminal case. It is also true that while applying for this Character certificate the petitioner had not disclosed this fact that he was actually convicted by a criminal court and to this extent, he had not gone to the authorities with clean hands to obtain the character certificate. However, the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved, goes back twenty years in time under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Further the petitioner was though convicted but not sentenced and was released on probation. This fact must be taken into account by the concerned authority before granting or refusing to grant the character certificate to the petitioner. This Court is not giving any finding as to the character of the petitioner. This has to be seen by the concerned authorities, who may grant or refuse such a certificate to the petitioner. However, since the broad facts relate to the criminal history of the petitioner which has not been examined in a proper perspective, nor the rules and regulations granting or refusing such character certificate have been discussed, therefore in the interest of justice, the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora is liable to be quashed, and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Magistrate / Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the entire facts in the light of the facts stated above and come to a fresh conclusion. The case has to be seen on its own merit by the concerned authorities, who may pass a reasoned 3 order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing an application along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.7.2009 Rathour