Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 2 To January 8, 2023

NOMINAL INDEX Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2 Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3 Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4 Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Benefit Of Doubt Regarding Correctness Of Answer Key Goes In Favour Of Exam Authority & Not Candidate: Allahabad High Court Case title - Gyan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 8892 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Noting that there is always a presumption about the correctness of an exam answer key, the Allahabad High Court observed that in the event of doubt over the correctness of an answer key, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. With this, the bench of Justice J. J. Munir dismissed a writ plea of one Gyan Prakash Singh challenging his non-selection as an Assistant Professor (Chemistry) to aided nongovernment colleges, engaged in imparting higher education, in the competitive exam conducted by the UP Higher Education Service Commission (UPHESC). Allahabad HC Orders NMC Inquiry Against 2 Doctors For Preparing 'False' Medical Report To Cause Wrongful Harm To Accused Case title - Ghanshyam Pandit vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42581 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 2 The Allahabad High Court directed the National Medical Commission (erstwhile Medical Council of India) to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of two doctors after prima facie finding that they prepared a false medical report in collusion with the injured person, so as to cause wrongful harm to the accused persons. The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the Doctors (Lalit Kaushik and Imran) working with V-Bros Hospitals, Saharanpur after noting that the report prepared by them regarding the injury sustained by the injured person was inherently improbable. “Be Careful In Future”: Allahabad High Court Takes Exception To Trial Court’s Judgment Mentioning Alleged Rape Victim’s Name Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3 The Allahabad High Court took exception to a judgment delivered by Sessions Court, Kanpur Dehat in which the rape victim’s name was mentioned and said that the Judge should be careful while dealing with such matters in the future. The bench of Justice Samit Gopal said it is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. “Before parting with the case it is necessary to mention that despite Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts of not disclosing the name of the victim of offence of rape, the trial court has specifically mentioned the name of the victim/prosecutrix while recording her evidence in court and at various places in the impugned judgment. Despite various reminders by the Apex Court about it, the trial court appears to have been ignorant about it,” the Court remarked in its order. Victim’s Testimony Unreliable, Major Improvements Made: Allahabad HC Acquits Police Constable Convicted In Minor's Rape Case Case title - Ajeet Singh Constable vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7478 of 2018] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4 The Allahabad High Court acquitted a police constable who was convicted in 2018 by a trial Court for allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor girl, after finding that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case. The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also observed that there were major improvements in the testimony of the victim and hence, the trial court was not justified in returning the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. 'Muslim Women Act' 1986| Divorced Muslim Wife Entitled To Maintenance Beyond Iddat Period, Until She Re-Marries: Allahabad HC Case title - Zahid Khatoon vs. Nurul Haque Khan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 787 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 5 The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive maintenance from her former husband not just till the completion of the ‘Iddat’ period, but for the rest of her life until she remarries. The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while setting aside an order of the family court wherein a divorced Muslim woman was found entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat. WEEKLY UPDATES Misbehaviour With Lady Judge| Allahabad...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 2 To January 8, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags