NOMINAL INDEX Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 151 Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 152 Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 153 Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 154 M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works...
NOMINAL INDEX
Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 154
M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 155
M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 156
State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Sunita And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk) 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
Sitaram v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
State of U.P. v. Dharma 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
Mahadevi v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 172
Govind v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 173
Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 174
Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 175
Charan Singh v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176
Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals 2022 LiveLaw (All) 177
Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 178
Razia v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 179
Prem And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180
Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority 2022 LiveLaw (All) 181
Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 182
Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183
Pawan Singh And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 184
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (All) 185
Naushad Ali (Second Bail Application) v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (All) 186
Suresh Chandra Tripathi v. State Of U.P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 187
State of U.P. v. Vasdev Chauhan S/O Brahmchari And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 188
Ram Shanker And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 189
Satish Sharma And Another v State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 190
CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 191
Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 192
Km. Sanaya Sharma (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 193
C/M Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Smt. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 194
Ram Kumar @ Tuntun v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 195
Mohd. Moin Quraishi v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 196
Surya Udaivir Alias Sonu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 197
Subodh Kumar Jain @ Subodh Jain v. State Of U.P And Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 198
Salman @ Mohammad Salman And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 199
Muraj @ Muraj Rajbhar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 200
Shahanshah v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 201
Juber v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 202
Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 203
U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Amit Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Namaha v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Sakshi Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Kiran Singh v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Lavi Choudhari v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 211
M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited v. M/S Kanodia Salt Company Ltd.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Chaman Mangla v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B. along with a connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Ram Autar And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Saurabh Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 216
Rajkumar Yadav v. State Thru C.B.I./ACB Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Dr. J.S. Yadav v. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Jaya Prada Nahata v. Mohd. Azam Khan And 9 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 220
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case title - Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 151
Rejecting the theory put up by a convict of Right To Private defence, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) UPHELD the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to the convict/Raj Kumar (appellant no 1) in a 41-year-old murder case.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav however, SET ASIDE the conviction of appellant no. 2/Raj Kishore under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC in connection with the same murder case, as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove a prior meeting of minds between appellant no. 1 (Raj Kumar)/Murder Convict and appellant no. 2 (Raj Kishore).
Case title - Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 152
Taking into account the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), the Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to one Hari Bhawan who has already served over a total of 17 years in jail.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v State of Uttar Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.491/2022.
It may be noted that while in Saudan Singh Case (supra), expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Feb 25, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Maoist Kheem Singh Bora Booked Under UAPA By UP Police
Case title - Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 153
The Allahabad High Court DENIED bail to an alleged Maoist leader Kheem Singh Bora who was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) in July 2019 from the Bareilly railway station.
Bora, who is carrying a reward of Rs 50,000 (as announced by Uttarakhand police in 2017), had moved to the High Court seeking bail in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act and 20/38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
However, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail in view of the fact that he is wanted in five criminal cases and that he is stated to be the State Secretary of the banned organization Communist Party of India (Maoist) for the State of Uttarakhand.
Case title - Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 154
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas seeking direction to the High Court administration to provide the benefit of the 10% reservation to the E.W.S. General Category candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.
Stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi dismissed the pleas.
Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.
The applicant/assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling rough C.I. Castings. The business premises of the applicant were surveyed on August 18, 2010, where certain exhibits were seized. The books of account as well as an estimation of turnover were made, which was assailed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 156
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act') would prevail over the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of Code of Civil Procedure and any other law that may allow the Courts' discretion while dealing with the requirement to pre-deposit a disputed amount in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 157
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea filed by the State Government against the discharge order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in 2001 in favor of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj in connection with a rape and kidnapping case.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into account the findings of the trial court that there was no evidence of allegation of kidnapping, loot or rape against the MP Maharaj and other accused persons.
Case title - Sunita And Others v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a wife who killed her husband in concert with two others (the life sentence awarded to them has also been confirmed) 18 years back by relying upon her 'voluntary' and 'trustworthy' extra-judicial confession.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed that since the extra-judicial confession made by the accused wife was corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence, and therefore, it concluded thus:
"The only hypothesis was that all three accused persons committed the gruesome murder of the deceased with planning and cool mind."
Case title - Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
The High Court granted bail to a murder accused, who has been in jail for almost 7 years, as it noted that there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future and the fact witnesses/prosecution witnesses are not-cooperating in the trial.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan ordered while dealing with the third bail plea filed by one Rameshwar Pandey who has been in jail since May 27, 2015, in connection with a case registered against him u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC.
Case title - Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
The High Court upheld the order of denial of bail to a Central Government servant, Irfan Shaikh accused of waging war against India by converting people to Islam by misusing his official position.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Brij Raj Singh affirmed the October 2021 order of the Special Judge, N.I.A./A.T.S./Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow denying bail to Shaikh by observing thus:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has found cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant that with the connivance of co-accused Umar Gautam and others, appellant is involved in anti-national activities of conversation by misusing his official position while working in Sign Language Training and Research Centre, New Delhi as Interpreter, we do no find any good ground to grant bail to the appellant".
Compassionate Appointment Not A Bonanza, Can't Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the High Court observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.
This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging the decision of a single judge.
Case title - Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
Denying anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused who allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, the High Court observed that if anyone has been declared as an absconder/ proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while relying upon the apex court's ruling in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar LL 2021 SC 579, wherein the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna had held thus:
"In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail"
Case title - In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk)
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
The High Court HELD a man, who wrote a letter alleging that in the District Court, all the Judges, Officers, and employees are dishonest and that they have murdered the Constitution of India, guilty of contempt
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma held Contemptnor [Vikram Sharma (Clerk)] guilty while refusing to accept his unconditional apology for writing the letter stating the aforesaid in the year 2016.
Case Title: Sitaram v. State of U.P.
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
The High Court held that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, ignores or does not take into account considerations that are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed,
"This would be more so where the statute conferring discretion on the authority has structured the discretion by expressly laying down the consideration which should be taken into account by the authority for exercise of the discretion. In such a case, if the exercise of the discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account or by disregard of the relevant considerations required to be taken into account, the decision arrived at by the authority would be invalid."
Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
The High Court ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.
The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.
Case title - Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2019]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
The High Court observed the discovery of the material object/crime weapon at the disclosure of the accused is important for the purposes of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
Holding thus, the High Court, on Thursday SET ASIDE the life sentence of a murder-convict in a case that dates back to the year 2014, after concluding that merely on the strength of the recovery of the crime weapon on the pointing out of the appellant-accused CAN'T form the basis of his conviction.
Case title - Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
Allowing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a father seeking visitation rights to meet his son presently living with his mother, the High Court observed the father is ENTITLED to visitation rights to meet his child.
Essentially, the child is presently living with his mother pursuant to a mutual agreement made between the husband and wife in a divorce suit decided on the basis of mutual consent. In the agreement, it was agreed the corpus/child will reside with his mother. However, the man/father moved to the Court alleging that he wasn't being allowed to meet the child.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Dharma
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
The High Court found a man guilty of committing the rape of a 10-year-old girl in May 1988, i.e., over 33 years after the date of the incident. With this, the HC allowed the Government appeal filed in 1989 against the trial court's acquittal order by setting aside the same.
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also observed that a socially sensitized Judge is a better armor in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and complicated provisos.
Case title - Mahadevi v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, (Health & Family Welfare) Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure that in all post mortem forms/proforma taken out by the competent authorities, the status/column of the hyoid bone shall be specifically reflected.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot ordered thus as it took into account an affidavit of the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah stating that post mortem forms/proforma taken out do not depict the status/column depicting the state of the hyoid bone.
Case title - Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
The High Court observed that the Learning Driving License and Voter I.D. Card should not be taken into account while determining the age of a juvenile.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi quashed the order of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar rejecting an application moved on behalf of one Naushad Ali (Revisionist), booked under Rape, Penetrative Sexual Assault charges (under POCSO Act), for declaring him to be juvenile.
Case title - Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
The High Court observed that even a minor girl cannot be detained against her will or at the will of her father in a Protective Home.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta directed the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur, who sent a girl/alleged victim to a protective home, to call her from the Nari Niketan, ascertain her wishes and pass an appropriate order for her custody in accordance with law keeping the wishes of victim.
Case title - Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 172
Stressing that the depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence of rape, the High Court denied bail to a man who committed rape on an 8-year-old girl.
Also Read - Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further observed that little girls are worshipped in our country, but the cases of pedophilia are increasing.
The Court also said that a victim/female small child who experiences sexual abuse once in her life, tend to be more vulnerable to abuse in adult life, and in such cases, the healing is slow and systematic.
Case title - Govind v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 173
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of committing oral sex with a 8 year old girl as it noted that mere long detention in jail does not entitle an accused for bail.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan further noted that the victim/prosecutrix was about 8 years at the time of incident, and therefore, the Court said, at the stage of bail, it cannot be presumed that she gave the statement about oral sex under the influence of her parents.
Case title - Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 174
The Uttar Pradesh Government last week opposed the recognition of same-sex marriage on the ground that such marriages are against Indian culture and Indic religions and shall be invalid according to Indian laws, which have been designed keeping in mind the concept/existence of a man and a woman.
The submission was made before the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav which was hearing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a mother seeking custody of her daughter (23 year old) alleging that she had been illegally detained by another woman, 22-year-old Sanjana (opposite party no. 4).
Case title - Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 175
The Allahabad High Court on Monday denied bail to a Nepali Citizen who has been accused of being in regular touch with 11 numbers pertaining to Pakistani nationals.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail on the ground that the matter pertains to national security and the applicant is not an Indian national and therefore, he doesn't deserve to be released on bail.
Bail Applicant-Mohd. Saleem Khan was arrested by UP Police on February 28, 2021, and from his possession, three fake aadhaar cards (having different dates of birth), a Passport of Nepal, and other documents were recovered. He was later on booked under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC
Case title - Charan Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1171 of 2006]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176
Observing that no cogent explanation was given to explain the chain of incriminating circumstances by the appellant-convict, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who killed his wife in the year 2004.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain specifically observed that nothing had come on record from the side of the convict-appellant that he resided elsewhere or worked for a gain elsewhere and was not present at the scene of the crime on the night of the incident.
Case title - Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 177
The High Court set aside the conviction of 3 murder accused in a 30 year old case as it found that the conviction recorded by the Trial court was based on untrustworthy last seen evidence.
The Court also opined that the accused had been seriously prejudiced on account of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer during the trial, and this omission had created a deep dent in the prosecution case.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Vires Of 'Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual' With ₹10K Cost
Case title - Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 178
The High Court dismissed a writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a declaration of the Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual as ultra-vires the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner (Shailesh Kumar Mishra) on account of the non-maintainability of the plea.
Case title - Razia v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 475 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 179
Reiterating the law laid down in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after the expiry of the period of iddat as long as she does not remarry.
The Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in May 2008, modifying the order of trial Court passed in Janury 2007.
Case title - Prem And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1826 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted 4 accused in connection with a 42-year-old Dacoity case as the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain suspected it to be a case of 'false implication' of the accused persons.
"...we have a strong suspicion, based on the facts of the case, the informant has taken the commission of dacoity in the village as an opportunity to falsely implicate persons with whom he had enmity i.e. the appellants along with other unknown dacoits," the bench remarked.
Case Title:Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 181
The High Court observed that the statutory compliance of a pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act") by a 'promoter' before the entertainment of an appeal in an Appellate Tribunal is mandatory.
A Single-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Agarwal, by an order dated 12.04.2022, rendered this observation while dismissing an appeal that sought to assail an order of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("the Appellate Tribunal") which had originally dismissed the appellant's appeal on grounds of non-payment of the mandatory deposit before entertainment of appeal as mandated under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act").
Case title - Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 182
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to take a decision for reorientation of the teacher-student ratio in the Schools being run by the Department Of Basic Education in Uttar Pradesh
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh perused the pleadings and noted that no particulars had been furnished by the petitioner, one Gaya Prasad.
Case title - Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183
"India is a Country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our Country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects," remarked the High Court as it dismissed a PIL plea filed in connection with the decision of the UP Government to ban meat/liquor sale in Mathura-Vrindavan.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, however, restrained itself from commenting anything upon the validity of the order of the UP Government (meat/liquor ban in 22 municipal wards after declaring the same as a pilgrimage site) as it noted that the PIL plea had not challenged the Government Orders.
Case title - Pawan Singh And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5086 of 2005]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 184
The High Court has observed that if the accused is convicted for two or more different offences, arising out of one and the same transaction, the basic rule is that the sentences must be directed to run concurrently.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh also said that Section 31 of CrPC leaves discretion with the Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently or consequently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Case Title: Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises, A&C Application U/S 11(4) No. 5 of 2022.
Citation: : 2022 LiveLaw (All) 185
The High Court has held that the Court for the purpose of an application under S. 29A of the A&C Act would only be the High Court that appointed the arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the Principal Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an extension of time. The Court held that Sub-section 6 of Section 29A allows the Court to substitute the arbitrator(s) and conferring this power on the Principal Civil Court would lead to an inconceivable situation where the mandate of an arbitrator appointed by the High Court could be substituted by an inferior Court.
Case title - Naushad Ali (Second Bail Application) v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy Home Lucknow
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 186
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of attempting to rape his own daughter and uploading her pictures on Facebook.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh denied bail to one Naushad Ali considering the relationship between the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix, heinousness of the offence, societal impact of the offence and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Case title - Suresh Chandra Tripathi v. State Of U.P And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 187
The High Court has observed that merely because an application of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court, it cannot be a ground to transfer a case from that Court to another.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus while taking into account the mandate of Section 407 Cr.P.C which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases and appeals.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Vasdev Chauhan S/O Brahmchari And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 188
The Uttar Pradesh Government recently apprised the High Court of its circular governing the procedure for filing the government appeal against the order of acquittal.
This was done pursuant to two orders of the High court (the Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav) asking the State Government to furnish the details of the concerned policy/government order/circular.
Case title - Ram Shanker And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2448 of 2009]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 189
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for killing his own wife and 3 children by way of burning them alive. The Court noted that the convict had failed to explain the incriminating circumstances pointing towards his guilt.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed that the convict was obliged to furnish a proper explanation under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house, however, he failed to do so.
Case title - Satish Sharma And Another v State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5824 of 2010]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 190
The High Court set aside the life sentence awarded to two murder accused as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants/accused had murdered the deceased, who was allegedly their helper.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain further observed that was a complete lack of evidence of the deceased being last seen alive with the accused, and therefore, the Court did not find it safe to confirm the conviction of the accused-appellants for the charge of murder of the deceased.
Case Title: CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., CIVIL MISC. Arb. A. 12 of 2021
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 191
The High Court has held that the embargo under S.86 of the Electricity Act which provides that only the Regulatory Commission can appoint an arbitrator does not apply when the agreement is for supply simpliciter and does not have an element of transmission, distribution, and trading of electricity and the Court can appoint an arbitrator in such cases.
The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that a party that has supplied some material for the construction of an electricity sub-station would not fall within the meaning of licenecee or supplier under the Electricity Act and when the contract is purely a commercial arising out of a supply contract and does not involve an element of trade in electricity, the provisions of Electricity Act are not attracted.
Case title - Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that in the event of any failure on the part of any person to comply with a Court's order to pay maintenance allowance, the correct/appropriate course for the courts is to first issue a warrant for the levy of fine as provided u/s 421 of CrPC for the purpose of realization of the amount.
With this, the bench of Justice Ajit Singh held that in such cases of non-payment of maintenance allowance, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest straightway against the person liable, without first levying the amount due as a fine as provided under Section 421 of CrPC.
Case title - Km. Sanaya Sharma (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Stressing that a mother's love must be given unconditionally to establish trust and a firm foundation of emotional intimacy in a child's life, the Allahabad High Court recently granted the custody of two children to their mother.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi ordered thus while dealing with a habeas corpus plea moved by one Seema Sharma seeking the custody of her two kids who were in the company of their grandmother.
Case title - C/M Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Smt. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Managing Committee of Anjuman Intezamiya Masjid regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid-Vishwanath Temple dispute in Varanasi.
In their plea, the Majid Committee had opposed the order of the civil court appointing an Advocate Commissioner to present a report after inspecting the idols of Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman, Nandi/Nandideva present within the Mosque premises.
Case title - Ram Kumar @ Tuntun v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3142 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The High Court has observed that a court can summon a person under Section 319 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only on the basis of examination-in-chief of witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence of such witness to be tested by cross-examination.
Here it may be noted that as per Section 319 of CrPC, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, a Court has the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
Can't Direct Govt To Declare Any Monument To Be Of National Importance: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mohd. Moin Quraishi v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The High Court has observed that the Court can't issue a direction to the Government for the purpose of issuing a notification declaring any monument to be of national importance.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed thus while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by one Mohd. Moin Quraishi seeking a direction to the State Government to issue a final notification regarding ancient monuments, namely, Haveli of Khan-I-Dauran, Mauza Basai Mustkil (Tajganj), District Agra declaring the same to be of national importance.
Case title - Surya Udaivir Alias Sonu v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 197
The High Court has reiterated that minor contradictions in the testimony of a witness which do not go to the root of the matter are not material contradictions and on this ground alone, the evidence of such witness cannot be brushed aside/disbelieved.
Observing thus, the bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) upheld the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicting one Surya Udaivir, under Section 302 I.P.C. with life imprisonment.
Case title - Subodh Kumar Jain @ Subodh Jain v. State Of U.P And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6555 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The High Court recently observed that police have unfettered powers of investigation and such investigation can continue even after the charge sheet has been filed under Section 173 (2) CrPC and cognizance has been taken thereon.
"...A Police Officer can suo motu make further investigations in cognizable cases...No permission of the Magistrate is required for carrying out further investigation...," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further held.
The bench observed thus while dealing with a writ plea moved by one Subodh Kumar Jain who prayed for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C.
Case title - Salman @ Mohammad Salman And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 348 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The High Court quashed an FIR lodged pursuant to the false allegations of rape made by a woman (who later on, got married to the accused) as the Court found that the lodging of an FIR was a way to build pressure upon the petitioners so as to get her marriage solemnized.
"The justice delivery system which includes the investigating agency as also the Courts cannot be made an instrument of settling personal score specially when in our country the legal system is already overburdened. Such misuse is only going to further confound the situation eating the precious time of both, the Investigating Agency and the Courts in dealing with false cases and as a consequence, thereof genuine cases are bound to suffer," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed as it 'saddled' Rs. 10K Cost on the alleged victim/first informant.
The Court ordered thus while dealing with a writ plea moved by the accused (now the husband of the first informant).
Case title - Muraj @ Muraj Rajbhar v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The High Court has observed that if someone keeps on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds, or conduct, which may provoke or encourage the deceased to commit suicide, it would amount to abetment.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while rejecting the bail application filed by one Muraj who has been booked under Section 306 of IPC as he has been accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-old girl, with whom he was in love.
Case Title - Shahanshah v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10011 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The High Court observed that only on the basis of a single incident, an order of externment can't be passed against a person under Section 3 [Externment, etc. of Goondas] of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970.
The Bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) further observed that one cannot be treated to be a habitual offender unless and until there is a recurrence of the offence and at the most the general reputation of the person is that he is desperate and dangerous to the community.
Case title - Juber v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1135 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on a person who sought reiteration of a general mandamus, which has already been issued by the High Court in the case of Vimal Kumar and three others Vs. State of U.P. and three others 2021.
It may be noted that in the Vimal Kumar case, the Allahabad High Court had directed the Police authorities to desist from making automatic/ routine arrests, especially in dowry cases (498A IPC), and strictly comply with the pre-conditions laid down under Section 41A of CrPC.
Case Title: Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The High Court observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and anyone who approaches the Court must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed.
A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") for quashing the entire criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.") and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title- U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 204
The High Court has held that the application of the term 'manufacturing process', which was added to the Employees State Insurance Act ('the Act') by virtue of the Employees State Insurance (Amendment Act), 1989 ('the Amendment Act'), would apply prospectively and would have no application prior to the said amendment coming into force.
A Single-judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia, sitting at Lucknow, observed thus while allowing a writ petition that primarily challenged multiple orders of the Employees State Insurance Corporation that demanded payment from the petitioners towards the employer's contribution in respect of the employees working in the accounts section of the PCF Press run by the petitioner.
Case title - Amit Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3894 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The High Court ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar to personally monitor the investigation in an FIR by the wife of a Judicial Officer against an advocate, who accused the Judicial Officer of taking a bribe to pass favorable orders.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar however refused to transfer the case to any other investigating agency as the Court opined that the allegations were neither specific nor are substantiated and that, there is no reason to doubt the impartiality of the Investigating Officer in the matter.
Case title - Namaha v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking direction to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to disclose his full and actual name in the public domain, with Rs. 1 Lakh Cost.
The PIL plea moved by one Namaha also sought a direction to CM Yogi Adityanath to take the oath of office and secrecy under his real name and to refrain from using the word 'Yogi' as a title in his official communication.
Case title - Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11201 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The High Court has observed that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith, as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipsofacto render such seizure illegal particularly as no period is specified and its consequences have not been provided.
Case title - Smt. Sakshi Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 316 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The High Court has observed that before taking any decision regarding the transfer of a criminal case, not only the convenience of the applicant/ complainant/ informant/ victim is to be taken into consideration, but the convenience of the accused and prosecution is also to be taken into consideration.
To observe thus, the Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also relied upon the recent ruling of the Allahabad HC in the case of Shailendra Kumar Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and another [Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 285 of 2021].
Case title - Smt.Kiran Singh v. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 896 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 209
In a significant observation, the High Court ruled that there is no bar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to a wife, even against whom, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh further stressed that it would be very harsh to refuse maintenance on the ground of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favor of the husband.
Provision Of De Novo Trial Is Mandatory For Any Accused Summoned U/S 319 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3716 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The High Court has observed that the provision of de novo trial is mandatory for the accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh stressed that the accused brought under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has to be given a fair trial in view of Section 319 (4) (a) Cr.P.C.
Case title - Smt Lavi Choudhari v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 209 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The High Court ordered protection for a married couple who had a love marriage against the wishes of the family of the girl.
In view of the fact that the Girl has been selected for the post of Sub Inspector in the U.P. Police, however, her father was not providing her the original education documents, the Court directed the S.P., Moradabad to procure all documents from the custody of the father and hand the same over to the Girl.
Case title - M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited v. M/S Kanodia Salt Company Ltd.And Another [CIVIL REVISION No. - 448 of 2012]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The High Court has observed that a clerical/procedural mistake that has occurred in the verification of pleadings can be rectified by moving the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the very purpose of Rule 17 in Order VI CPC is to give liberty to a party in a suit to amend his pleading at any stage in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Case title - Chaman Mangla v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1066 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The High Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on the presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true.
At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant a conviction, noted the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
Case title - Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Dismissing two bail pleas filed by Accused under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, the High Court has observed a minor discrepancy in the weight of the sample sent to the Forensic Laboratory cannot shake the roots of the prosecution case.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to the two Accused [Chhotey Lal and Kavinder Kumar] booked under
Sections 8(C)/18/29 of the NDPS Act after they were arrested from the general bogey of a Train for allegedly being in possession of a total of 7 KG of opium.
Case title - Ram Autar And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 879 of 1986]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The High Court set aside the life sentence of two in a 42-year-old murder case giving them a benefit of doubt as it noted that the prosecution case flowed from highly interested witnesses.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shamim Ahmed sensed a suspicion shrouding the prosecution case, which gave the Court, a strong feeling that the informant party had grabbed the opportunity of an occurrence, perhaps an accident, to spin a story against its rivals.
Case title - Saurabh Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3135 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 216
The High Court refused to interfere in a plea challenging a magistrate's order dismissing an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking FIR against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for his tweet, which allegedly insulted the Indian flag.
Kamra had tweeted a morphed picture of the Supreme Court replacing the tricolor atop it with the flag of a political party.
It may be noted that last year a Varanasi Court had upheld the order of the Magistrate in by dismissing the criminal revision plea filed by a local Lawyer Saurabh Tiwari. Now, challenging both these orders, a plea under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was moved by Tiwari before the HC.
Case title - Rajkumar Yadav v. State Thru C.B.I./ACB Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4319 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 217
The High Court denied bail to a former govt Junior Assistant/Clerk in connection with an alleged Rs.1500/- crores scam pertaining to the financial irregularities committed with criminal intent in the work of "Gomti River Channelization Project" and "Gomti River Front Development" by the Irrigation Department.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to Rajkumar Yadav as it noted that it was prima-facie found that he was also the part and parcel of the chain of corruption having been committed causing a heavy loss to the State Exchequer.
Case Title- Dr. J.S. Yadav v. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 218
The Lucknow Bench of the High Court expressed shock over non-compliance of a direction issued by a Division Bench of the High Court, as long back as in the year 2001.
"It is a case where the appellant has taken recourse to the judicial proceedings to thwart the course of justice and a direction which was issued by the Division Bench in the year 2001 has not been complied with till date. This in itself is a shocking state of affairs which does hurts the judicial conscience and has a deleterious effect on the public at large" Bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh remarked.
Case Title: Jaya Prada Nahata v. Mohd. Azam Khan And 9 Others [ELECTION PETITION No. - 10 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The High Court dismissed an election petition filed by actress Jaya Prada challenging the election of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan from the Rampur parliamentary constituency.
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh dismissed the plea for want of prosecution that is to say in the absence of the counsel for Jaya Prada. All pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
In her election plea, Jaya Prada had alleged that at the time of his election, Azam Khan held the post of the Chancellor of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University, which was an office of profit. She had also alleged that Azam Khan made religious appeals to get votes.
Case title - Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 220
"Justice is not for the accused only, justice should also be done with the victim," remarked the Allahabad High Court as it dismissed 3 pleas filed by gang-rape accused seeking transfer of their trial from Jhansi District to any other district.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed that if a case is transferred, it will add insult to the injury to the gang-rape victim.
"If the case is transferred from District Jhansi to any other district, it will be inconvenient for the victim, witnesses, prosecution and for the society as a whole because the case sought to be transferred relates to gang rape," the Bench remarked as it dismissed their pleas.