Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: March 11 – March 17, 2024

Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147

M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148

Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149

Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151

Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153

Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154

M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159

State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161

M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162

Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164

Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165

Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168

Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH

Allahabad HC Dismisses Shooter Vartika Singh's Plea Challenging Dismissal Of Her Defamation Complaint Against Union Minister Smriti Irani

Case title - Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed International Shooter Vertika Singh's plea challenging Sultanpur Special MP/MLA Court's October 2022 order rejecting her defamation complaint against Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development, Smriti Zubin Irani.

A Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for not summoning Irani to face trial under section 499/500 IPC, as according to the trial court, there was no sufficient material/ground for proceeding further in the defamation case.

Criminal 'Proceedings' U/S 6(2)(f) Passport Act To Include Investigation Prior To Filing Of Chargsheet: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court for any alleged offence committed by the applicant.

Tendering Committee Failed To Perform Functions Properly, Did Not Scrutinize Tender Documents: Allahabad HC Awards Tender To Highest Bidder

Case Title: M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148 [WRIT - C No. - 39170 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148

The Allahabad High Court has awarded tender to the highest bidder who was above the reserve price as the tendering committee had failed to scrutinize tender documents and acted in a lax manner.

Petitioner participated in e-tender-cum-e-auction for short-term permit, also regarding Gata No.62 and 63/1 Area 42.00 acre, Village Khapatiha Kala, Tehsil Pailani, District Banda. Petitioner's bid was the second highest. The petitioner then filed an application stating that the highest bidder had not filed self-attested copies of the Aadhaar Card, Pan Card, and Character Certificate and therefore, its bid was liable to be rejected.

S.138 NI Act | Cause Of Action U/S 142(1)(B) Only Arises After Expiry Of 15 Days For Payment Of Amount: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. ­ 7895 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cause of action under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises after expiry of 15 days granted to the drawer to pay the amount to the payee/cheque holder under clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act.

Section 142(1) of the NI Act provides that a complaint must be made within 1 month of the date from which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of Section 138. Clause (c) of Section 138 provides that action under Section 138 may be initiated if the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the amount due to the payee/ holder of the cheque within 15 days from the date of notice. Further, Section 142(1)(b) provides that if sufficient cause is shown, delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Court.

Hindu Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Unilateral Declaration Executed On A Stamp Paper: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

The Allahabad High Court has held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can't be dissolved by a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a Criminal Revision plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the family court directing him to pay Rs. 2200/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent in the plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.

UP Stamp (Valuation Of Property) Rules | Burden On Revenue To Prove Nature & Potential Use Of Land Not Discharged Properly, No Spot Verification: Allahabad HC

Case Title: M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151 [WRIT-C No.12727 OF 2012]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151

Placing reliance on its earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and other, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that there was a deficiency in stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale deed is upon the Department.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that in the absence of mandatory spot inspection under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, the burden was upon the Department to prove that the land was not being used for the purpose stated in the sale deed.

“Such being the case, the burden of proof that rested solely on the Revenue to indicate the nature of the land and the potential use of the land was not discharged properly. Furthermore, the reasoning provided by the authorities below for valuing the land on the basis of non-agricultural cannot be sustained as the same is based on another piece of the land that was much closer to the highway and certain constructions were made on that piece of land.”

Courts Must Exercise Power Conferred U/S 451 CrPC Judiciously And Without Unnecessary Delay: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.

For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the 'Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property'.

“So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made,” emphasised a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed.

UP Public Services (Reservation For EWS) Act | Allahabad HC Declines EWS Reservation For Recruitment Of 69000 Asst Teachers Initiated Before Commencement Of Act

Case Title: Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153 [WRIT - A No. - 4063 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153

The Allahabad High Court has refused to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section category for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers held in 2020, as the process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.

The state of UP enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020), published in the Gazette on 31.08.2020, for implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of the society.

'Public Servants Should Remain Within Bounds Of Law': Allahabad HC Raps Gorakhpur ADM Over Unfair Notice Under 'UP Goondas Act'

Case title - Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3277 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154

The Allahabad High Court reprimanded Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Gorakhpur for issuing a notice to a man under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act 1970 against a man based upon a solitary case registered against him. The Court also directed the state to pay Rs 20K to the man within 2 months.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP to ensure that the public servants exercising powers of the State "remain within the bounds of law" and violation of law may entail disciplinary proceedings against them.

GST | Vehicle Number In 'Bilty' Couldn't Be Changed As Goods Were In Transit, E-Way Bill Was Updated: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155 [WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.

Petitioner's goods were intercepted, and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the bilty and invoice accompanying the goods had the earlier vehicle's number.

'Supporting Such Relations Will Create Chaos In Society': Allahabad HC Junks Protection Plea Of Live-In Couple Involving Married Adults

Case title - Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by a couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses, imposing a fine of 2K. The court emphasized that if such type of relationship gets the support of the Court, it will create chaos in society and destroy our country's social fabric.

"The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce, a person cannot get married with another person," a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it dismissed the protection plea.

Before Issuing Proclamation U/S 82, 83 CrPC Court Should Record Its Satisfaction That Person Is Deliberately Avoiding Proceedings: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

The Allahabad High Court has observed that before issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 of CrPC, the Court concerned must record its satisfaction that despite the service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the person concerned has deliberately avoided the proceedings.

Emphasizing that if any order issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 CrPC lacks the procedure described above, such an order would be a nullity in the eyes of the law, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus:

"...any order of proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. must be passed on an application of a person concerned/ Investigating Officer etc. to the effect that after service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant upon the person concerned, he/ she is avoiding the proceedings so a proclamation may be issued and on such application, which must be supported with an affidavit, the court concerned may issue proclamation under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. indicating the subjective satisfaction on the aforesaid aspect in the order itself."

A Person Can't Be In An Illicit & Live-In Relationship As Per Hindu Law If His/Her Spouse Is Alive: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158 [WRIT - C No. - 1546 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158

The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while dismissing a protection plea filed by a live-in relationship couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses.

"The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court," the court observed as it emphasised that such relationship cannot be supported by the orders of the Court.

Tenant's Right To Basic Amenities Like Electricity Subject To Him Being Authorized 'Occupier': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159 [WRIT - C No. - 5548 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.

Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must be a legal and authorized occupier of the premises to seek such electricity connection.

Public Toilets 'Scam' | Allahabad HC Sets Aside Barabanki CJM's Order Taking Cognizance Of 'Criminal Conspiracy' Offence Against CDO & SP

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Barabanki district by which cognizance of the offence under 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) was taken against the then Chief Development Officer (CDO) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district in connection with the alleged scam in the construction of public toilets.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in a revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the CJM, Barabanki.

High Court Cannot Grant Stay During Pendency Of Appeal When Stay Application Is Also Pending Before Appellate Authority: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge granting a blanket stay on the order passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil - Obra, District - Sonbhadra under Section 134 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The Court held that the stay could not have been granted as the stay application was pending before the Commissioner.

Respondent filed a writ petition seeking early disposal of the stay application pending before the Commissioner. The Single Judge had directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided within 6 months period with a further direction that during the pendency of the appeal, the order impugned shall remain stayed.

Customs Act | “Reason To Believe” For Confiscation Of Goods Must Be Based On Credible Material: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162 [WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162

The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

“Curtailment of free trade has serious consequences. While the revenue authorities would be within their jurisdiction to exercise their power to seize and confiscate goods that may have been smuggled inside the customs frontiers, yet with respect to natural products, that are also grown inside the country, no presumption is available to presume or assume that such goods are smuggled unless the assessee or the citizen otherwise satisfies that they are of Indian origin.”

Personal Loan EMI A Part Of Husband's Net Monthly Income For Purposes Of Determining Maintenance Payable To Wife U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

The Allahabad High Court observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, the payment made by the Husband towards the monthly instalment of personal loan has to be added to his net monthly income.

The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I added that merely on the ground that a wife is a BA degree holder and has done some professional course, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.

Mandatorily Pass Order Asking Parties To File 'Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities' Affidavit In Maintenance Proceedings: Allahabad HC To Judicial Officers

Case title - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25862 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164

The Allahabad High Court directed all the Judicial Magistrates as well as Presiding Officers of Family Courts in the state, dealing with maintenance proceedings, to mandatorily pass a specific order directing the parties to file their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32.

"It seems appropriate to direct that when an application under Section 125 of CrPC or a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act or an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed before the Court concerned, it should by passing a specific order on the order-sheet direct the applicant to file his/her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed while directing the registry to circulate its order to all the Judicial Officers of the state.

Can All Accused Cross-Examine A Witness Recalled After Addition Of Another Accused U/S 319 CrPC?: Allahabad HC Explains

Case title – Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2138 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165

The Allahabad High Court clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only.

In other words, the HC held that only the accused who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC has a right to cross-examine a witness and the persons who were accused since before and who had already availed opportunity of cross-examining the said witness, have no right to cross-examine the said witness again.

“A bare reading of Section 319 (4) CrPC indicates that where a person is summoned under Section 319 (1) to face the trial, the proceedings shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard only in respect of such person and not in respect of all the accused persons,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Future Group CEO Kishore Biyani Concerning A Commercial Transaction

Case title - Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

In a relief to the founder and Group CEO of Future Group, Kishore Biyani, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings including a summoning order and a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him in connection with a case related to a commercial transaction.

A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order on Biyani's application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Gorakhpur court's summoning and NBW issuance order passed in a criminal complaint moved against him under Section 120B, 463, 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Defamation Case Filed Against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh By A Journalist

Case title - Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

The Allahabad High Court has QUASHED a criminal defamation complaint case filed against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The complaint, filed by a Lucknow-based freelance Journalist (Mohd Kamran), alleged that MP Singh wrote letters to State Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defaming him.

A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the letters in question appeared to be confidential and privileged communication between two constitutional authorities (Member of Parliament and Chief Minister). The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not suggest that MP Singh caused the letters in question to be published in the print media or digital media or on social media platforms.

Marriage Between Hindus Cannot Be Dissolved By Compromise In Proceedings U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court held that any such marriage can only be dissolved by a decree passed a competent Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held

“The marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955.”

[UP Fighters Of Democracy Honor Act 2016] Mere Allegations Of Bad Character Don't Disentitle Person From Claiming Benefits: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169 [WRIT - C No. - 31840 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere allegations of having 'bad character' do not disentitle a person from claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016.

“Fighters of Democracy” are defined under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016 as the residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh who actively fought during the emergency period from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977 and were detained in political grounds in jail under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for participating in such activities.