NOMINAL INDEX State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 446 Ms. X Thru. Her Legal Guardian Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 447 Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448 Bundu And 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Ms. X Thru. Her Legal Guardian Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Bundu And 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Pawan Mishra v. State of U.P. along with the connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Ambika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Sapna v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case title - State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 779 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court sentenced former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari to 5 years in jail in connection with a 23-year-old case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside a 2020 order passed by the MP-MLA court acquitting Ansari of charges under the Gangsters Act in a case that was registered against him in the year 1999.
Case title - Ms. X Thru. Her Legal Guardian Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 6102 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bahraich to take requisite steps to provide compensation to a 12-year-old Rape survivor whose unwanted pregnancy was terminated earlier this month as per HC's order.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has further asked the Secretary, DLSA to take up the matter with the district authorities and submit a report to the Senior Registrar of thE Court as to the outcome of such efforts taken for the payment of compensation to the victim or her family as per the prevailing scheme i.e. U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.
Case title - Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Anther [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 408 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the retirement of a government servant, if such employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government, it is the Governor who can take action as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
With this, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that the penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on an officer/employee after his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation, however, withholding or withdrawing a pension and ordering the recovery from the pension is permissible and that too, by an order of the Governor as per the Article 351-A of the CSR.
Case Title: Bundu And 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court observed that a victim has no right in law to drop the case of a non-compoundable offence of serious and heinous nature which badly affects society.
The bench Justice Sameer Jain that such cases become a matter between the State and the accused and it is the duty of the State to ensure the law and order and to prosecute the offender in such cases.
Case title - Pawan Mishra v. State of U.P. along with the connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the event of the death of the victim, the statement made by her/his to any living person becomes relevant and admissible in evidence under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act if the same relates to cause of her/his death.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma further clarified that under Indian Law, it is not necessary that the person who made any declaration was actually expecting an assault that would kill him
Case title - Ambika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 8 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a finding of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 (3) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania further stressed that a revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings.
"Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on the revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on the fresh appraisal of evidence," the Court remarked.
Case title - Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a plea seeking registration of a complaint against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for his alleged 'objectional speech' delivered during an election campaign in Rajasthan's Alwar district in the year 2018.
CM Yogi Adityanath had allegedly said that "(Hindu God) Hanuman Ji was a forest dweller, deprived and a Dalit. Bajrang Bali worked to connect all Indian communities together, from north to south and east to west"
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the object of holding a general public meeting during elections is to address the gathering present there so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party.
"Conveying a press conference and/or giving an interview to the press is a totally different act than addressing a general public meeting in elections. A person holding a press conference and a person giving an interview to the press has a clear intention and message to the persons present that his speech or lecture or answers be published in newspaper and magazines. Addressing a general public meeting during elections for the purposes of canvassing elections is a totally different act with a different intention and object. The same is to address the gathering present at the spot so as to imbibe a thought in them for supporting the said political party," the bench remarked.
Case title - Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION 482 No. - 23160 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur declining to accord permission to an application of the state, forwarded by the Prosecuting Officer under section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of a rape case against former Union minister Chinmayanand Saraswati.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also slammed the Uttar Pradesh Government for its decision to withdraw a case against Saraswati as it remarked that the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur had failed to spell out even a single good reason for the withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused.
Case title - Sapna v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24592 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court censured the conduct of a woman who protested in the courtroom against the grant of bail to an accused. Noting that she was purportedly from the informant's side, the bench of Justice Siddharth called her conduct to be unbecoming of a fair litigant.
Essentially, when the Court granted bail to accused Sapna, a woman, who was standing in court room protested in loud voice and was taken out forcibly by the lawyers and litigants. Not just that, she created lots of disturbance outside the court as well, the Court noted.
Other updates from the High Court
Case title - Suresh Kumar Tanwar And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko. And Another and connected plea
The Allahabad High Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against two litigants for filing forged documents before the HC.
Issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners/litigants, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh directed the Director General of Police, U.P. and Director General of Police, Uttarakhand to ensure the arrest of the petitioners and their presence before the Court on October 12.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Vakil S/O Babu Khan [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 591 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not mandatory for the High Court to summon the lower court record in every case before deciding the State Government's application for grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal order as provided under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
For context, section 378 Cr.P.C. provides for filing of appeal in case of acquittal by the State. Sub-section 3 of Section 378 Cr.P.C. contemplates for grant of leave for the entertainment of such appeal
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that it is for the High Court to decide on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case whether the application for grant of leave requires the perusal of the lower court records or not.
The Court was of the view that though the right of the appellate court to summon the lower court record in an appropriate matter always subsists, it is not necessary for the HC to call for the lower court records for consideration of an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., in every case or as a matter of routine.