Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Sparsh Upadhyay

23 Jun 2024 9:28 PM IST

  • Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024

    NOMINAL INDEXState Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395 Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396 Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397 Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District...

    NOMINAL INDEX

    State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

    Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

    Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

    Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

    Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

    Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

    Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

    Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

    X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

    Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

    Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

    Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

    State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

    Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

    Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

    ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

    1982 Murder Case | 'Faulty' Investigation, 'Contradictions' In Testimonies Of PWs: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused

    Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

    The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.

    A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.

    Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offence Sans Magistrate's Permission Is Illegal; Subsequent Nod Is Immaterial: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, and subsequent permission by the Magistrate cannot cure this illegality.

    Referring to the provision under sub Section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature, and if such permission isn't taken, merely accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognisance of the offence does not validate the proceeding.

    UP Anti-Conversion Law Won't Achieve Its Purpose If Prosecutions Under 2021 Act Are Frequently Interfered With: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Anti-Conversion Law, enacted in 2021, will fail to achieve its intended purpose if the courts frequently interfere with prosecutions under the Act at their initial stage.

    Emphasizing that such interferences, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, could undermine the effectiveness of the law, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:

    The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.”

    Administrators Often Lose Objectivity When Visited With Judicial Command: Allahabad HC On Rejection Of Compassionate Appointment Claim After Filing Of Writ

    Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

    While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”

    The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.

    [U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules] Employee Shall Be Entitled To Pay If Initial Approval Of Appointment Not Recalled: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

    The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.

    “The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.

    'Documents Forged': Allahabad HC Dismisses NEET Aspirant's 'Torn OMR Sheet' Plea, NTA Mulls Action Against Her

    Case title - Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

    The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED (being not pressed) a writ petition moved by a NEET aspirant (Ayushi Patel) after it was revealed that she submitted forged documents in her petition alleging the NTA failed to declare her result. In her plea, the candidate also claimed that her OMR answer sheet was torn.

    A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan dismissed the petitioner's petition, deeming it a “really sorry state of affairs” that she filed the petition enclosing the forged and fictitious documents.

    Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Not State Under Article 12, Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against It: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401 [WRIT - A No. - 19131 of 2023]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram as it is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no statue regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.

    Justice J.J. Munir relied on the decisions in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P. and Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog & Others where the Allahabad High Court has held that Shri Gandhi Ashram, parent body of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not state within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against the Ashram.

    Accused's Act Of Absconding Alone Doesn't Establish His Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Conviction In 25 Year Old Murder Case

    Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

    Setting aside a conviction in a 25-year-old murder case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that only on the basis of the absconding of the accused, he cannot be held to be guilty.

    A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.

    Gravity Of Offence Not A Relevant Consideration While Dealing With Bail Plea Of Juvenile Accused: Allahabad HC

    Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

    Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.

    'Highly Dangerous To Convict Him On This Kind Of Evidence' Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 46 Year Old Murder Case

    Case title - Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2751 of 1980]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

    While underscoring the critical importance of robust and credible evidence in securing convictions, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man previously convicted of murder in a case dating back 46 years.

    We think it is highly dangerous to convict the appellant on this kind of evidence when there are strong circumstances to show that the testimony of the sole eyewitness needs corroboration, either from ocular testimony or documentary/scientific evidence,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

    Court Can't Add Or Subtract Sections In Police Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offences U/S 190 CrPC: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that the offences cannot be added or subtracted by the concerned Magistrate or Judge in the police report when they are being considered under Section 190 CrPC.

    A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj reasoned that at the stage of taking cognisance of offences based on the police report, no hearing is provided to the complainant or the accused and hence, adding the offences without hearing the accused “would certainly prejudice them”.

    Use Of Blank Printed Proforma For Passing Judicial Order Is Unacceptable: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Cognizance & Summoning Order

    Case title - Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

    The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the use of blank printed proforma for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is unacceptable, being indicative of nonapplication of judicial mind in passing the order.

    While passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner,” a bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said.

    Prosecution Failed To Prove Chain Of Incriminating Circumstances: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 42 Year Old Murder Case

    Case title - State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

    The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 42-year-old murder case, emphasising that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.

    The Court also stressed that to attract the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove that a fact was especially in the knowledge of the accused, and it has to be seen whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

    NDPS Act | Can Convict Accused Based On Testimony Of Police/DRI Witnesses If It Inspires Confidence: Allahabad HCv

    Case title - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused's conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) if such testimony inspires confidence.

    With this, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan upheld the conviction of 3 men who were found guilty of the offences under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

    UP Police Exam Paper Leak | 'Nothing Incriminating Recovered From His Possession': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To An Accused

    Case title - Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

    The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit, who was held earlier this year for allegedly trying to manipulate a police constable examination and leaking the question papers.

    A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him relief, noting that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and that the co-accused (Monu Kumar and Rajneesh Ranjan), who were also apprehended along with the applicant, have already been released on bail by the High Court.


    Next Story