Judgments/Orders of the Week1. 'Prayers Omnibus In Nature': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL On Alleged Corruption In MadarsasCase title - Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors.Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1The High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a farmer to point out corruption in the...
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a farmer to point out corruption in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in certain Madarsas as the Court noted that the plea contained omnibus prayers.
"...it is apparent that the prayers, instead of being specific, are omnibus in nature. The prayer to issue such directions is absolutely vague and general in nature," The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed after perusing the prayers of the PIL.
Case title - Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) v. State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The High Court denied bail to a man accused of committing Rape by establishing a physical relationship with the Victim on a false promise to marry her and thereafter, threatening her to accept the Muslim religion.
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi was dealing with the bail plea of one Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) who contended that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of blackmailing.
Case title - Sheshmani Nath Tripathi v. E.C.I.Thru. Chief Election Commissioner,New Delhi & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which sought quashing of the order of recognition given to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Indian National Congress (INC) as National Parties by the Election Commissions of India (ECI) and further, allotting symbols to them.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Saroj Yadav was hearing a PIL filed by the petitioner, Sheshmani Nath Tripathi (leader of Samajwadi Party) challenging the 1989 order by the ECI recognizing BJP and INC as a National Party and reserving "Lotus" and "Hand" symbols for them.
Case Title- Smt. Prabha Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has recently held in a case challenging land acquisition proceedings that private interest has to give way to the larger public interest.
Upholding the proceedings for construction of a railway over-bridge, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agarwal observed,
"Private interest has to give way to the larger public interest. Even if there are some small discrepancies in the process of acquisition, in our opinion in the facts of the present case, the acquisition does not deserve to be set aside as otherwise the project will be delayed which will cause loss to the State besides suffering to the residents of the area, who may be deprived of using the railway over-bridge on account of delayed completion of the project. In any case, the petitioner will be duly compensated for the land owned by her."
Case title - Aryan Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The High Court directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to examine and pass a reasoned order in a claim for compensation made in a case of a teacher's death who died due to COVID during the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Polls last year.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan was hearing the plea of one Aryan Srivastava whose mother was assigned election duty in UP Panchayat Elections during which she contracted COVID-19 and died thereafter.
6. Offence Punishable U/S 506 IPC If Committed In Uttar Pradesh Is A Cognizable Offence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The High Court observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation), if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence
To conclude thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Hon'ble Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Case title - Janki Prasad v. Sanjay Kumar And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The High Court recently ruled that when an appeal has to be dismissed by the appellate Court on account of the fact that the counsel for the appellant though physically present in the Court, refuses to argue the same for any reason, the dismissal can't be on merits in view of the Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC.
Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC states that the appellate Court can't dismiss the appeal on the merits in cases where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing.
Agaisnt this backdrop, the Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai, while dealing with the Second Appeal of one Janki Prasad held the following:
"...the Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC also applies in cases where the counsel for the appellant, though physically present in the Court when the appeal is called on for hearing, refuses to argue the appeal or for any other reason is not able to address the Court and in such situations, the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits."
Case title - Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. connected wiith Atul Kumar And 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Noting that the prosecution, as a matter of routine, does not lay emphasis on the production of independent witnesses during the course of the trial, the Allahabad High Court observed that the failure of the investigating agency to record statements of such witnesses during an investigation must be viewed seriously by the courts of law.
Dealing with a criminal appeal against a murder conviction where no independent witnesses were examined or produced, the Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Manish Kumar was of the further opinion that, that time is not far when the courts may have to invoke the suo motu powers to summon such witnesses for which there ought to exist a witness protection law.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court
Case title - Imtiyaj Ali & Ors. v. Addl.Commissioner Faizabad-I,Mandal Ayodhya,Ayodhya & Anr
The High Court observed that the Members of the Bar are free to hold a meeting to condole the demise of any member or anyone else, but they do not have the right to obstruct the functioning of Courts.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir observed this while dealing with the affidavits filed before it by the President and the Secretary of Commissioner Court's Bar Association, Ayodhya tendering their unconditional apology for the repeated strikes.
Case title - Sanjay Goel and another v. State Of U.P. and 2 Others
The High Court stayed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the Director and Manager of OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. in an alleged mobile explosion case.
Essentially, a case had been registered against the Director and Manager of OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to the lodging of an FIR by the third respondent/informant alleging that he bought a mobile phone of OPPO brand in July 2019 and the said mobile phone exploded in his pocket on September 2020, due to which he sustained injuries.
A day after Allahabad High Court decided to hear cases virtually in view of rising cases of COVID in the state of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court today issued a revised notification allowing for a Hybrid mode of hearing (in both the benches of HC) w.e.f. January 4.
This decision has been taken after the Advocates' Associations (Oudh Bar Association and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad) raised their demands for allowing a Hybrid mode of hearing and protested against the Virtual Only mode of hearing.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 250 Orders/Judgments]