Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: February 28 To March 6, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77 TO 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 93 NOMINAL INDEX 1. Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77 2. Mohd. Afzal @Guddu and Anr. v. State of U.P. . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 78 3. Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lucknow . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 79 4. Hasmukh Prajapati v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 80 5. Durga Datt Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 81 6. Ahsan And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 82 7. Mohd.Imran Malik v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 83 8. Kalicharan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 84 9. Ram Audhi @ Sudhir Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 85 10. In-Re v. Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 86 11. Smt. Habiba v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 87 12. Alok Shukla And Another v. State Of U P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 88 13. Yashpal v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 89 14. Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 90 15. Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Sp Cbi/Acb Naval Kishore 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 91 16. Prasiddh Narayan Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 92 17. Smt. Ramendri v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 93 Judgments/Orders of the Week 1. Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry Case Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77 The High Court has reiterated that the identity of a juvenile/ child in conflict with law must not be disclosed. Thus, the Court directed its Registry to redact the name of the juvenile accused in the present case, from the entire record. Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori observed, "the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed." 2. Statement Of Witness Recorded U/S 161 CrPC Is Only For Confrontation In Cross-Examination, Does Not Fall Within Ambit Of Evidence: Allahabad HC Case Title : Mohd. Afzal @Guddu and Anr. v. State of U.P. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 78 "It is crystal clear in the catena of judgement that statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of evidence. Such evidence is only for confrontation in cross-examination. The statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being wholly, inadmissible in evidence, cannot be taken into consideration," the Allahabad High Court has held recently. The remarks were made by Justice Om Prakash Tripathi and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta while dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the appellants against the order of conviction passed by Special Judge, Bulandshahr and sentencing the appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The Bench noted that in reaching the conclusion of guilt, the trial Court had relied on the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC, with the help of Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. It disagreed with this course of action. 3. License To Run 'Fair Price Shop' Under Public Distribution Scheme Not Fundamental Right To Carry Business Under Art. 19(1)(g): Allahabad High Court Case Title: Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lucknow Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 79 The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that a license to run a fair price shop is a privilege conferred by the State on a person. These kind of licenses does not fall within a category of fundamental right to carry on their business as provided in Article19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. "A need for fairness in procedure adopted for suspension and cancellation of such license/agreement would not mean that these licenses fall within the category of a fundamental right to carry on the business as provided under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said. 4. Difference Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court Explains Case Title: Hasmukh Prajapati v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 80 The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating upon a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India discussed the difference between 'Seat' and 'Venue' of Arbitration in the light of several judicial precedents. Justice Siddharth clarified, "The term "seat" is of utmost importance as it connotes...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: February 28 To March 6, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags