All High Courts Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94 Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95 Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96 Monu Thakur v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97 Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98 Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99 M/S V.K. Traders v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 100 Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101 Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102 Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103 Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 104 Mohammad Azam Khan v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 105 State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106 Jatinder Pal Singh vs M/S Statcon Power Controls Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 107 Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 108 Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109 Bhura v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 110 Judgments/Orders of the Week 1. Magistrate Has Duty To Ensure Fair Probe After Passing Order U/S 156 (3) CrPC: Allahabad High Court Case title - Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94 The High Court observed that the Magistrate cannot wash his hands of the case after passing an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and that it is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that investigation is done impartially and in a fair manner. The Bench of Justice Umesh Kumar observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (60) ACC 689, wherein the Apex Court held thus: "...there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same." 2. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Posting Pakistan's Flag, Writing 'I Love You Pakistan' On FB Case title - Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P. Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95 The High Court granted bail to a man who has been booked under Sedition Charges (Sedition 124-A IPC) as he allegedly supported and posted Flag of Pakistan on his Facebook I.D. and thereby tried to create any social disturbance in the country. Having heard the counsel of the petitioner/Mohammad Niyaz, the Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, was of the opinion that it was a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application was allowed. 3. Evidence Of Public Officer Can't Be Disbelieved Merely Because He Is A Police Officer: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail In NDPS Case Case Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96 "Evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer," the High Court held while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in a case pertaining to recover of 1,025 kg ganja. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav discarded the argument that the arresting officials did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4. "No Worthwhile Evidence To Prove Charges": Allahabad HC Acquits Minor's Rape-Murder Accused, Sets Aside Death Sentence Case title - Monu Thakur v. State of U.P. Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97 The High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of burning a 14-year-old girl alive after committing rape upon her. Acquitting the accused of Rape and Murder charges, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain noted that that there was no worth-while evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused-appellant. 5. Armed Forces Tribunal Act Cannot Curtail High Court's Power Of Judicial Review U/A 226: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98 The High Court made it clear that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court's power of judicial review contained under Article 226 of the Constitution. "The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and...

All High Courts Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Shrutika Pandey

Tags