Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Murder Case Against MoS Ajay Mishra 'Teni'| Allahabad HC Posts Case For Final Hearing In January After Complainant's Alleged Son Intervenes

Sparsh Upadhyay

21 Dec 2022 3:40 PM GMT

    • Murder Case Against MoS Ajay Mishra Teni| Allahabad HC Posts Case For Final Hearing In January After Complainants Alleged Son Intervenes

    41 days after reserving the judgment in the matter, the Allahabad High Court today posted the Government's appeal challenging the acquittal of Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' in Prabhat Gupta murder case 2000, for 'final hearing' in the third week of January 2023The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal passed this order after one Rajeev Gupta, claiming himself to be the son...

    41 days after reserving the judgment in the matter, the Allahabad High Court today posted the Government's appeal challenging the acquittal of Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' in Prabhat Gupta murder case 2000, for 'final hearing' in the third week of January 2023

    The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal passed this order after one Rajeev Gupta, claiming himself to be the son of the complainant (also revisionist) Santosh Gupta, sought to move an application for permission to submit written arguments on behalf of revisionist.

    Our readers may note that the Bench had reserved the Judgment in the case on November 30 in the appeal filed by the UP Government challenging the order and judgment of the trial court acquitting Teni. This case had been tagged with the revision plea filed by Santosh Gupta/Complainant (father of deceased Prabhat Gupta).

    Now, on November 15, Rajeev Gupta pressed an application (for filing of written argument in revision plea) stating that since his Senior Counsel had not addressed the issue involved in the revision plea, as he was not well on 10.11.2022, therefore, written arguments prepared by him be taken on record. 

    To this, the Court at the outset, noted that it was not brought on record that the original revisionist had died in 2005, and in his plea, the alleged legal heir Rajeev Gupta was substituted as revisionist. The Court also noted that after the death of the revisionist/complainant-Santosh Gupta, no fresh power/vakalatnama on behalf of his legal heirs had been filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate

    "It is an admitted position that there is no application in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2004 to the effect that revisionist-Santosh Gupta died; there is no application on behalf of the legal heirs/victim for bringing on record the name of the legal heirs/victim; there is no application to the effect that Rajeev Gupta is the legal heirs of the revisionist-Santosh/victim for survival/continuance of Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2004...," the Court observed.

    However, in the interest of justice, the Court granted two weeks' time to the Counsel of the revisionist to file an appropriate application bringing on record the legal heirs of the revisionist-Santosh Gupta for survival/continuance of Criminal Revision as well as to file fresh power on behalf of legal heirs of revisionist-Santosh Gupta, if so desires.

    "...considering the submission of Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist that revisionistSantosh Gupta died and Rajeev Gupta is the legal heir of the revisionist, this Court deems it appropriate to grant time to Shri Sushil Kumar Singh to bring on record the actual and correct position by means of the appropriate application, in the interest of justice as well as to afford further opportunity to Rajeev Gupta, who claim himself to be legal heirs of the revisionist so that his Senior Counsel Shri Jyotinjay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate may appear and argue the revision filed by the revisionist," the Court ordered as it listed the matter for 'Final Hearing' in the third week of January 2023.

    The case against Mishra in brief

    It may be noted that this case dates back to the year 2000 when a rising student leader named Prabhat Gupta was shot dead near his house in Tikonia (Lakhimpur Kheri). In this case, 4 people including Union Minister Teni were named as accused. In 2004, he was acquitted by the lower Court. Challenging that order, UP Govt moved the High Court in the year 2004.

    During the course of the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the state that Teni had a dispute with the deceased regarding the Panchayat elections, and hence, the deceased was shot dead by Teni and co-accused Subhash alias Mama. The state argued that the testimony of the eyewitness was ignored by the trial court.

    On the other hand, Teni's counsel argued that the trial court had not found the testimony of the alleged eyewitness to be reliable, and hence, the trial court was justified in acquitting Teni of the offence. 

    It may be noted that earlier, a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court heard the appeal finally and reserved its order on March 12, 2018, however, the same was released subsequently by the bench on the application filed by the complainant/applicant as the judgment was not delivered after more than six months and the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing.

    Thereafter, four years lapsed but the matter could not be heard finally, hence an application for early listing of the appeal for a final hearing was filed earlier this year. Hearing the matter on April 7, a division bench of the High Court directed that the matter be listed for final hearing on May 16, 2022, before the appropriate Bench.

    Despite the Division bench's order, the judgment in the case could not be delivered, and the case was adjourned at least 8 times (till October 17).

    In October 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Teni's prayer to transfer the instant Government appeal from Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench to Prayagraj Bench. Instead, the bench of the then Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi made a request to the High Court to hear the appeal for disposal on November 10, 2022, the date given by the High Court and agreed upon by Senior Counsels for both the sides.

    Essentially, Mishra had moved to the Supreme Court after his plea for transfer of the Government's appeal was dismissed by the Chief Justice-led bench of the Allahabad High Court. He had sought the transfer on the ground that the Senior Counsel who is representing him was ordinarily based in Allahabad and because of his old age, it would not be possible for him to go all the way to Lucknow for arguments.

    In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that in case the Senior Counsel (representing Mishra) is unable to come down to Lucknow, a request for allowing said counsel to make submissions through videoconferencing may be considered by the High Court.

    Case title - State of U.P. vs. Ajai Mishra @ Taini And 3 Ors. along with a connected matter

    Click Here To Read/Download order


    Tags
    #Ajay MishrateniUnion Minister Ajay Kumar MishraAllahabad High CourtJustice Ramesh SinhaJustice Renu AgarwalUttar Pradesh government
    Next Story
    X