NOMINAL INDEX Reevan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128 Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129 Urmila Devi Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 130 Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another...
NOMINAL INDEX
Reevan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Urmila Devi Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Pawan Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 133
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Reevan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors [CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 1 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has observed that before entertaining a public interest litigation plea concerning corruption by a public servant, the Court needs to be satisfied first with the credentials of the person approaching the Court.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus while dismissing a PIL plea filed before it by a dismissed state government employee of seeking, among other things, action against a current employee of the state government (respondent no. 6) on account of his alleged corrupt activities.
Case title - Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10924 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Today, the Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside a 2019 order of the State Government by which a convict, who was granted a life imprisonment sentence in two criminal cases, was granted remission.
Observing that the convict (Man Singh) was not entitled to remission of the sentence as his case was covered by prohibition no. (x) of the State Government’s remission policy, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Surendra Singh-I directed the convict to surrender within 30 days and to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
Case title - Urmila Devi Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2924 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Class III employee concerning a money claim as it noted that the plea had been moved 27 years after the alleged cause of action allegedly arose in her favour.
In a strongly worded order, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the petitioner had approached the Court with a stale and belated claim, which suffered from gross delay and laches.
"This Court finds that the claims of the petitioner are not only stale and belated but are also barred by principal of constructive res judicata inasmuch she had earlier approached this Court for certain claims but did not make any prayer for the claims which have been made in the present petition. Further, this Court cannot entertain a writ petition for money claim after 27 years from the alleged cause of action allegedly arose in her favour," the Court remarked.
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36921 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that violence in one form or the other is not a sine qua non for a group of persons to qualify as a ‘gang’ under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Perusing Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be achieved through the practice of violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise.
Case title - Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19835 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court held that if an injury has been caused in the nature of a hole in the eardrum and if the same does not cause a hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity, then such an injury doesn't amount to 'grievous hurt' as per Section 320 (thirdly) of IPC.
The Court further observed that for such an act of inflicting injury (causing a hole in the eardrum) to fall under the 'grievous hurt' category, it has to be shown by way of medical evidence that there was a permanent privation of the hearing of ear or hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity.
Case title - Pawan Garg vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28748 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband can't be summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a case where his wife, as the sole proprietor of a Business, issues the cheque.
The bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, while allowing the petition filed by petitioner Pawan Garg seeking to quash the court's summoning order, said, "applicant cannot be summoned as accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and the summoning order in respect of the applicant is bad in law in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case."