Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

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

Judgments/Orders of the Week

1. Allahabad HC Relies Upon Wife's Extra-Judicial Confession To Confirm Life Sentence Awarded To Her, 2 Others For Killing Husband

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."

2. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Murder-Accused In Jail For 7 Yrs In View Of Non-Cooperation Of Prosecution Witnesses

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.

3. Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Govt Employee Accused Of Waging War Against India By Converting People To Islam

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".

4. 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.

5. Absconder/ Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To POCSO Accused

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"

6. "He Has No Respect For Constitution": Allahabad HC Holds Man Who Called District Judges 'Murderers Of Constitution' Guilty Of Contempt

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.

7. Exercise Of Discretionary Power Without Taking Into Account "Relevant Considerations" Under Statute Invalid: Allahabad High Court

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."

8. Registration Under GST ACT Cannot Be Cancelled By Merely Describing The Firm As 'Bogus': Allahabad High Court

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.

9. Weapon's Discovery On Disclosure Statement Of Accused Alone Not Enough To Prove Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Murder-Convict's Life Sentence

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.

10. "Child's Father Entitled To Visitation Rights": Allahabad HC Disposes Habeas Plea Allowing Man To Meet His Child Living With Mother

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.

11. Allahabad HC Finds Man Guilty Of Raping A 10 Y/O Girl 33 Years After The Incident, Sets Aside Trial Court's Acquittal Order

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.

12. Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Ensure That Status Of Hyoid Bone Is Reflected In All Post Mortem Forms

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.

13. Learning Driving License, Voter ID Card Can't Be Considered To Determine Juvenile's Age: Allahabad High Court

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.

13. Even Minor Girl Can't Be Detained In Protective Homes Against Her Will Or At The Will Of Father: Allahabad High Court

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.

Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts

1. "Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute A National Dispute; Emotions Of Millions Are Involved": Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argue In Allahabad HC

Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others

In the ongoing hearing before the High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar, one of the contesting respondents in the case termed the dispute as a national dispute.

Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was argued that it is not a dispute of property simpliciter, but it is a national dispute with the emotions of millions of people attached to it.

2. Allahabad HC Seeks Details Of UP Govt's Circular Governing The Procedure For Filing Govt Appeals Against Acquittal Orders

Case title - State of U.P. v. Khannu S/O Chetan Mishra And Another

The High Court asked the Government of Uttar Pradesh to furnish the details of its policy/government order/circular governing the procedure for filing the government appeal against the order of acquittal.

The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav issued this order after it dealt (and dismissed) with two such government appeals on March 30, wherein it found that the prosecution could not bring any evidence before the trial court for conviction of the accused persons implicated in both the cases.

3. Allahabad HC Seeks UP Bar Council's Assistance In Suo Moto Case Regarding Paucity Of Presiding Officers In UP Revenue Courts

Case title - Suo-Motu-With Regard To Filling Up All Vacancies In Revenue v. State of U.P.

The High Court requested the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to assist the court in the suo moto matter regarding the non-availability or paucity of Presiding Officers in the Revenue courts.

The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has requested the members of the Bar Council of U.P. who are residents of Lucknow to assist the Court in the matter on the next date [April 27, 2022].

4. Allahabad HC Seeks UP DGP's Personal Presence To 'Apprise' Him Of His Dept's 'Reckless Approach' In Not Complying With HC's Order

Case title - Alok Kumar v. Rakesh Shankar [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5432 of 2018]

The High Court sought the personal presence of the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to apprise him of the state of affairs of the Uttar Pradesh Police department and the reckless approach of the officers of the department in not complying with the orders the High Court.

The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava has directed the UP DGP, Mukul Goel to remain personally present before the High Court on April 21, 2022 in connection with a contempt plea moved by one Alok Kumar.

5. UP Judge Who Had Lain Down Before A Bulldozer To 'Protect' His Land Suspended By Allahabad High Court

The High Court suspended the Additional District Judge I (ADJ), Sultanpur District Court Manoj Shukla. ADJ Shukla was recently in news for an act wherein he had lain down before a JCB/bulldozer last month in an attempt to protect his ancestral land in Basti district which was being taken over by the state government.

ADJ Manoj Shukla is originally a resident of the Chhapia Shukla village of Basti district. He is presently serving as an ADJ in the Sultanpur district. Last month, he had lain in front of a JCB wearing a coat, pants, and a tie, the video of the incident had gone viral on social media as well.

6. No Proposal Pending To Setup Allahabad High Court's Bench In Western Uttar Pradesh: Centre Informs Rajya Sabha

The Ministry of Law & Justice informed the Rajya Sabha that at present, no complete proposal regarding setting up of Bench of Allahabad High Court in Western Uttar Pradesh, particularly at Meerut is pending with the Government.

This piece of information was provided by the Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijijju in response to a question put up by MP Vijay Pal Singh Tomar regarding the Setting up of the High Court Bench at Meerut.

7. Over 10 Lakh Cases Pending In Allahabad HC As On March 25; Govt Fully Committed To Speedy Disposal Of Cases: Centre Tells Rajya Sabha

The Union Law and Justice Ministry informed Rajya Sabha that 10,31,282 cases are pending before the Allahabad High Court as on 25 March 2022 as per the information/data available on the web portal of National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

This piece of information was provided by the Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijijju in response to a question put up by MP Syed Zafar Islam regarding Pendency in the High Court of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad)

8. Dogs Maul Minor Boy To Death In Lucknow: Allahabad High Court Registers Suo Moto Case On Menace Created By Stray Dog

Case title - Suo-Moto In Re: Menace Created By Stray Dogs

Taking note of an unfortunate incident wherein an eight-year-old boy was killed and his sister was severely injured after they were attacked by more than 20 stray dogs, the Allahabad High Court today registered a suo moto case regarding the menace created on account of unchecked stray dogs on the streets of Lucknow.

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi took note of the incident while referring to the newspaper reports of the incident and termed the news as extremely disturbing.

"Nothing can be more pain giving for a human being than to learn a human life being lost in such a manner. As per the news paper reports, stray dogs attacked the brother and sister duo and killed the brother separating his sister from him forever, perhaps to meet in only the next birth. The description of the incident in the newspaper reports has the potential of disturbing even the strongest mind, which compels us to take suo moto cognizance of the issue relating to the menace created on account of unchecked stray dogs on the streets of Lucknow," the Court observed.

9. Allahabad High Court Directs Advocate Who Threatened A Lady Judge To Tender An Apology To Her, Imposes ₹5K Cost

Case title - In Re v. Ramakant Verma, Advocate And Another

The High Court directed an advocate, who threatened a lady judge, to tender a written apology to her and also give an undertaking that he would not repeat such conduct in the future. Similar directions have been issued for his client as well.

Essentially, the Advocate (Ramakant Verma) had issued a Section 80 C.P.C. notice to the presiding officer/a lady Judge in the Basti Judgeship demanding compensation, with a threat that in case the compensation is not paid, recourse would be taken by instituting a suit.