Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316 Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317 Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318 Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319 Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320 State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321 Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322 State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323 Orders/Judgment of the Week Utmost Precaution Needed While Finding Accused Guilty On The Basis Of Circumstantial Evidence: Allahabad High Court Case title - State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1709 of 1984] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316 The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. With this, the Court upheld the acquittal order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC). The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma noted that the witnesses in the instant cases were not able to recognize the accused persons and the accused persons were named in F.I.R on account of enmity. Criminal Intimidation Case: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Uttar Pradesh MLA Nahid Hasan Case title - Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8054 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317 The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal denied him bail looking to his criminal history and the order sheet of the trial court showing that he avoided appearing before the trial court. Essentially, an FIR was registered under Section 406, 504, 506, I.P.C against Hasan and one Nawab by one Shahjahan alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in the year 2015 to co-accused Nawab. Courts Shouldn't Stay Termination & Dismissal Orders During The Pendency Of Court Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Case title - Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318 Referring to several landmark rulings, the Allahabad High Court has observed that by way of an interim order the order of suspension termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in Court. The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was essentially dealing with an Intra Court Appeal filed questioning the interlocutory order passed in March 2022 wherein the termination order against an employee of Abss Institute Of Technology was stayed during the pendency of the writ plea filed by the employee challenging the termination order. No Appeal Can Be Maintained By 'Victim' U/S 372 CrPC On The Ground Of Inadequacy Of Sentence: Allahabad High Court Case title - Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 142 of 2017] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319 The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequacy of sentence and therefore, the appeal preferred by the 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] of the crime against the inadequacy of sentence is not maintainable. The bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan in its order clarified that the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. [No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided] could only be filed on the happening of three situations namely (i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted; (ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence; (iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s). Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against UP Govt's 'Resumption' Notification Apropos Imambara Qadeem Property In Prayagraj Case title - Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320 The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the 2012 notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government resuming a piece of land [1500 square meters] in Village Manauri, District Prayagraj where currently a building known as Imambara Qadeem is situated. Essentially, the UP Government invoked its powers of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to take possession of the...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags