NOMINAL INDEX Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497 X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498 Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499 Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500 Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And...
NOMINAL INDEX
Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497
X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Anil Kumar v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Jal Shakti Deptt. Drinking Water And Sanitation New Delhi And ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Even If Penetration Was Very Slight The Act Would Constitute Rape: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 743 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the penetration was very slight and was not into the vagina, the same will bring the act within the definition of rape.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma further observed that in rape cases, the extent of penetration is immaterial and that the perineum is part of the private parts, which sheathes the urethra.
Case title - X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2521 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Denying bail to a Juvenile, a religious teacher, who allegedly raped an 8-year-old girl (his student), the Allahabad High Court today observed that he needed counseling by psychiatrists/experts not only for his own betterment but also for the health of society.
"He needs to be extended services of reformatory and rehabilitatory nature so that he can move without posing danger to himself as well as to the public and so that he can be brought back to the mainstream," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed.
Case title - Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 21333 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to count the period of ad-hoc service rendered to grant pensionary benefits to an employee who retired in 2013 with a regular service record of over 17 years.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi quashed an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad whereby the period of ad hoc service rendered by an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) had not been taken into account for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits to him.
Case title - Smt. Gazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf and others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 643 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) is not a civil court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, a case pending before it can't be transferred to any other court by the HC.
For context, LARRA is an "Authority" established by the appropriate Government under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case title - Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2670 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court observed that a period of 1.5 years is an 'extremely unreasonable long time' to keep disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee after the submission of an inquiry report.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed so while dealing with the case of one Yatendra Kumar (suspended General Manager, U.P. Nirman Nigam Ltd), challenging his suspension order passed by the UP Government in June 2020 in contemplation of departmental proceedings initiated against him.
Marriage Certificate Issued By Arya Samaj Has No Statutory Force: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman [FIRST APPEAL No. - 830 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court held that Marriage Certificates issued by Arya Samaj have no statutory force. It was further held that in the absence of a valid marriage, the marriage certificate of Arya Samaj is not proof of a valid marriage.
The observation came from the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV which was dealing with a first appeal filed by one Ashish Morya challenging an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur dismissing his application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
For Every Tree Removed, Ensure Two Are Grown: Allahabad High Court To State Govt
Case title - Anil Kumar v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Jal Shakti Deptt. Drinking Water And Sanitation New Delhi And Ors [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 789 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure that two trees are planted in place of every tree removed for the construction work under the Jal Shakti Mission to supply water to people.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava issued this order while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by one Anil Kumar.
Case title - Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And ors [WRIT - A No. - 2516 of 2019]
Case title - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to grant a minimum pay (at par with regular employees) to 4 IVth class contractual employees who are working with U.P. State Legal Services Authority since 2005.
This order came from the bench of Justice Alok Mathur which relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjeet Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 where it was observed that the employees, who are continuously discharging duties commensurate with regularly appointed persons, are also entitled to be paid the same wages in accordance with the provisions of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Case title - Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another [WRIT - A No. - 6428 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has restrained the UP Government, block-level officers, and various other departments from passing any orders for the engagement of Anganwadi Workers in any other work/duty including election duty.
"...this Court is of the considered view that work which is being discharged by Anganwadi Workers is of considerable importance, looking into the fact that in one block there is only one worker and in case that one Anganwadi Worker is assigned duty in elections or any other work then entire nursing and lactating woman including pregnant women would not be taken care of and would adversely affect the health of public at large," the Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed
Case title - Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3333 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court opined that even if the accused has not been arrested, if a dead body is discovered pursuant to the information elicited from the accused during police interrogation, the same would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed thus while relying upon the Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case of Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. 2002 (44) ACC 288.
In the Sangam Lal case (supra), a division bench of the HC had observed that in order to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary that the accused should have been under arrest and it is enough if he has come into the hands of a police officer or is under some sort of surveillance or restriction.
With this, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant/accused (Vidya Devi) who killed her daughter-in-law in connivance with her son (husband of the deceased) and husband in the year 1984. Finding that she is presently on bail, the Court canceled her personal bonds and surety bonds and ordered that she be sent to jail to serve the remaining part of her sentence (life imprisonment).
UPDATES OF THE WEEK
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) last week submitted before the Allahabad High Court that it is examining the modern techniques that can be adapted to determine the age of the alleged 'Shiva Linga' found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises.
The Counsel for the ASI, Manoj Kumar Singh however added that the method of relative carbon dating may be adopted to determine the age of the structure. It was also stated that these are just prima facie observations and the ASI is still contemplating as to what methods could be adopted to determine the age of the Shiva Linga.
Case Title - Dist. Bar Association Amethi, Thru. Its General Secretary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 828 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court last week took exception to the alleged act of authorities to demolish the house of a lawyer without issuing a notice to him. The Court also questioned the unnecessary and undue haste of the authorities in cancelling the exchange order pertaining to the property (over which the house was built) passed in favor of the lawyer.
Directing the parties to maintain the status quo in the matter, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava ordered the Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter and place all facts before the Court.
Case title - Vikram Singh Saini@ Vikar Saini V. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8461 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court last week REJECTED an application filed by the (now disqualified) BJP MLA, Vikram Saini seeking a stay on his conviction in connection with the 2013 Muzaffar Nagar riots case. Saini represented UP's Khatauli Assembly and was elected as an MLA for the first time in 2017.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected his application while observing that merely pleading that due to the conviction, Saini would stand disqualified as per the Act, 1951, is no ground to suspend the conviction.