Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024
Sparsh Upadhyay
23 Jun 2024 9:28 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXState Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395 Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396 Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397 Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District...
NOMINAL INDEX
State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402
X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406
State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, and subsequent permission by the Magistrate cannot cure this illegality.
Referring to the provision under sub Section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature, and if such permission isn't taken, merely accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognisance of the offence does not validate the proceeding.
Case title - Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Anti-Conversion Law, enacted in 2021, will fail to achieve its intended purpose if the courts frequently interfere with prosecutions under the Act at their initial stage.
Emphasizing that such interferences, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, could undermine the effectiveness of the law, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:
“The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.”
Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398
While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”
The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.
“The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case title - Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED (being not pressed) a writ petition moved by a NEET aspirant (Ayushi Patel) after it was revealed that she submitted forged documents in her petition alleging the NTA failed to declare her result. In her plea, the candidate also claimed that her OMR answer sheet was torn.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan dismissed the petitioner's petition, deeming it a “really sorry state of affairs” that she filed the petition enclosing the forged and fictitious documents.
Case Title: Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401 [WRIT - A No. - 19131 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram as it is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no statue regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.
Justice J.J. Munir relied on the decisions in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P. and Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog & Others where the Allahabad High Court has held that Shri Gandhi Ashram, parent body of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not state within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against the Ashram.
Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Setting aside a conviction in a 25-year-old murder case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that only on the basis of the absconding of the accused, he cannot be held to be guilty.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.
Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.
Case title - Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2751 of 1980]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404
While underscoring the critical importance of robust and credible evidence in securing convictions, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man previously convicted of murder in a case dating back 46 years.
“We think it is highly dangerous to convict the appellant on this kind of evidence when there are strong circumstances to show that the testimony of the sole eyewitness needs corroboration, either from ocular testimony or documentary/scientific evidence,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.
Case title - Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the offences cannot be added or subtracted by the concerned Magistrate or Judge in the police report when they are being considered under Section 190 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj reasoned that at the stage of taking cognisance of offences based on the police report, no hearing is provided to the complainant or the accused and hence, adding the offences without hearing the accused “would certainly prejudice them”.
Case title - Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the use of blank printed proforma for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is unacceptable, being indicative of nonapplication of judicial mind in passing the order.
“While passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner,” a bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 42-year-old murder case, emphasising that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.
The Court also stressed that to attract the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove that a fact was especially in the knowledge of the accused, and it has to be seen whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Case title - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused's conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) if such testimony inspires confidence.
With this, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan upheld the conviction of 3 men who were found guilty of the offences under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Case title - Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit, who was held earlier this year for allegedly trying to manipulate a police constable examination and leaking the question papers.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him relief, noting that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and that the co-accused (Monu Kumar and Rajneesh Ranjan), who were also apprehended along with the applicant, have already been released on bail by the High Court.
