CITATIONS Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478 Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479 State Of U.P. v. M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480 In re v. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481 Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil...
CITATIONS
Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479
State Of U.P. v. M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480
In re v. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Arti Devi v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Haseen Alias Ishu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case title - Saroj Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Up Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7559 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court rejected the prayer of certain murder accused who sought a brain mapping test/NARCO/lie detector test upon themselves as well as the complainant so as to contract out the truth of the case.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori however, clarified that if the Investigating Officer, on his own, decides to get the said tests conducted, then he can get the test conducted subject to the consent of the accused.
Case title - Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17078 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court observed that the marriage of an individual is no ground to deny him/her a compassionate appointment as entering into a marital relationship doesn't raise a presumption that a person is financially stable.
With this, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan set aside an order of the DIG (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P denying compassionate appointment to the younger son of a UP Police constable who died during his service tenure.
Demand Of Tax and penalty can't be imposed on the basis of conjecture : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has held that the demand for tax and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of conjecture and surmise, especially in cases where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and E-way bill.
The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has observed, "As the respondent has not approached for availing of the benefits that flow from Section 129, coupled with the fact that the appellate authority found that the basis for initiating proceedings was non-existent, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in the exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India."
Case Title - In re v.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court closed contempt proceedings against an advocate who disrupted the working of the High Court on October 21 after the bench asked him to make changes to the cause title and hide the name of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law (the revisionist in the case).
The proceedings were dropped by a division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad after the contemnor (Advocate Sunil Kumar) tendered his unconditional apology orally as well as in writing.
Case title - Vijay Kumar Singhv. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6870 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a high-powered committee to inquire as to how NOCs and licenses were granted to the Hotel Levana Suites, where a major fire incident took 5 lives on September 5, without properly verifying the eligibility of the hotel to obtain such licenses/NOCs.
It may be noted that on September 09, 2022, a major fire engulfed the hotel Levana Suites, situated in a posh locality of the city of Lucknow and after several hours of persistent efforts of the rescue teams, the fire in the hotel was doused.
Case title - Arti Devi v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9242 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the statement of the 13-year-old boy that the applicant has committed an act being 'Gandi Harkat' (loosely translated as Dirty Act) would be prima facie sufficient ground to summon the accused (a lady in this case) as per Section 204 CrPC.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further clarified that such an act, if the commission of the same is proved in the trial, could amount to an offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act as even touching a private part of a child with sexual intent may fall under 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of POCSO Act.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Anti-CAA Protester Who Spent Over 26 Months In Jail
Case title - Haseen Alias Ishu v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35291 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged Anti-CAA Protesters, 26 months after he was arrested by Kanpur police. The bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed that the accused had not been named in the FIR and there was no evidence on record to indicate that he was a part of mob which particiapted in the protest.
The Court was essentially dealing with the bail plea of one Haseen Alias Ishu, who was in jail since August 22, 2020 for allegedly participating in the ruckus which took place on December 20, 2019 at Kanpur Nagar against the implementation of the Citizen Amendment Act in which people lost lives due to indiscriminate firing caused by the assailants and by the police.
Other updates from the High Court
Case title - In Re .....Petitioner v. Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad
Observing that no action was being taken by Uttar Pradesh government's senior bureaucrats despite its repeated orders regarding serious issues of infrastructure in state's courts, the Allahabad High Court in a stern order has said none else than Chief Secretary will file his affidavit in the matter and a senior officer of the State will remain present in the court to assist the Advocate General whenever the case is listed.
"We may record that number of issues have been pointed to the senior bureaucrats of the State including the Chief Secretary in different meetings on the administrative side to which no satisfactory response has been received. All these issues are well within the knowledge of the State bureaucrats on which no action has been taken despite seeking time and the matters have been kept pending as a result of which there is no improvement in infrastructural facilitiies available in the Courts, besides shortage of staff," a full bench of the high court said in the order dated November 4.