Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
LATEST JUDGEMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS
SEARCH JUDGEMENTS
Loading
 
Allahabad High Court

Judgement Dated: 26-Aug-2009
Criminal Appeal  : 7555 of 2009
Indian Penal Code - Section:

Toran Yadav And Another Vs. State Of U.P.

Head note: On granting bail by one judge to any accused, another judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the basis of parity :Allahabad High Court

Judgement:
Honble Vijay Kumar Verma,J. On granting bail by one Judge to any accused, is another Judge also is under obligation to grant bail to the similarly placed co-accused on the basis of the principle of parity without considering the merit, is the main point that falls for consideration in this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in which prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicants Toran Yadav s/o Puntey Yadav and Raghubeer Yadav s/o Toran Yadav in Case Crime No. 356 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379, 411 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Poora Kala, District Lalitpur. 2. An FIR was lodged by Smt. Bhoori Raja, wife of Mohan Singh on 24.7.2008 at P.S. PooraKala, District-Lalitpur, where a case under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered at Case Crime No. 356 of 2008 against 1.Santosh 2.Bhan Singh 3.Kalyan Singh 4. Shankar Yadav 5. Ballu Yadav 6. Toran Yadav and 7. Raghuveer Yadav. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that Raj Bhan Singh @ Badey Raja s/o the complainant Smt. Bhoori Raja had gone to Jhansi to meet his lawyer on 24.7.2008 and when after consulting his lawyer, he was coming back to his house on motorcycle and reached near Hanumanji Temple at about 3:50 p.m., the accused Santosh, Bhan Singh and Kalyan Singh came from behind on motorcycle and surrounded Raj Bhan Singh. At the same time, the accused Shankar Yadav, Ballu Yadav, Toran Yadav and Raghubeer Yadav having axes and rifle in their hands came from the side of village. The accused Santosh fired repeated shots from his rivolver on Raj Bhan Singh, due to which he fell down. Shankar Yadav also fired on Raj Bhan Singh from rifle and other accused gave blows by axes. Due to the injuries sustained in the said incident, Raj Bhan Singh died on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, the complainant Smt. Bhoori Raja, her daughter-in-law and village people Rajju, Mulayam Singh and Godan Singh rushed towards the place of incident. When daughter-in-law of the complainant and wife of deceased Raj Bhan Singh fell down on his dead body, the accused Santosh Singh fired on her, due to which she sustained injuries. It is further alleged in the FIR that while fleeing away from the place of incident, the accused Shankar Yadav carried the motorcycle of the deceased. 3.I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the applicants and AGA for the State. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicants was that co-accused Ballu Yadav, who was also armed with axe as per FIR and statements of the witnesses, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.3.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applicatin No. 4230 of 2009 and hence, on the basis of the principle of parity, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail, as these applicants also are alleged to be armed with axes. The contention of the learned counsel was that since the similarly placed co-accused Ballu Yadav has been released on bail on merit by another Bench of this Court, hence this Bench also is bound to grant bail to the applicants on the basis of the principle of parity. 5. On the matter of granting bail on the basis of the principle of parity, it was submitted by learned AGA that parity is not the sole ground for bail and this Bench is not bound to release the applicants on bail on the basis of the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4230 of 2009, whereby bail to the co-accused Shanker Yadav and Ballu Yadav has been granted. 6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the matter of granting bail on the basis of the principle of parity, I entirely agree with the submission of learned AGA that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail. 7. The matter of granting bail on the ground of principle of parity has been considered in several decisions of this Court and Honble Apex Court. The Full Bench of this Court in Sunder Lal Vs. State 1983 Cr. L.J. 736 did not accept this proposition, which will be evident from the following observations in para 15 of the report:- The learned Single Judge since has referred the while case for decision by the Full Bench, we called upon the learned Counsel for the applicant to argue the case on merits. The learned Counsel only pointed out that by reasons of fact that other co-accused has been admitted to bail the applicant should also be granted bail. This argument alone would not be sufficient for admitting the applicant to bail who is involved in a triple murder case.... 8. This question was again examined by the Division Bench of this Court in Nanha Vs. State 1993 Cr L J 938, where after consideration of several earlier decisions on the point including Sunder Lal (supra), the Honble Judges constituting the Bench gave separate opinions. Honble G.D. Dubey, J. held as follows in para 24 of the reports; ..... My answer to the points referred to us is that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail application of the co-accused whose bail had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail. Even then the Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more material placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on examination of a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the Court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should be also released on bail. Honble Virendra Saran, J. held as follows in para 61 of the reports: My answer to the points referred to is that if on examination of a given case it transpires that the case of the applicant before Court is identical, similar to the accused, on facts and circumstances, who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail (Exceptional cases as discussed above apart)..... This shows that there was no unanimity between the two Judges constituting the Bench and according to Honble G.D. Dube, J. parity cannot be the sole round for granting bail to a co-accused. 9. The Honble M. Katju, J., as His Lordship then was, declined to grant bail on the ground of parity and referred the matter to larger Bench in Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 311. The matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench. While deciding the said reference in Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P. (1998 U.P. Cr.R. 263) the Division Bench held that:- a Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant facts essential for granting bail. 10.It is further held by the Division Bench in Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P. (1998 U.P. Cr.R. 263) that if bail has been granted in flagrant violation of well settled principles, the order granting bail would not be in accordance with law. Such order can never form the basis for a claim founded on parity. The following observations made by the Bench in Para 17 of the report are also worth mentioning:- The grant of bail is not a mechanical act and principle of consistency cannot be extended to repeating a wrong order. If the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle, it will be open to the Judge to reject the bail application of the applicant before him as no Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to maintain consistency. 11. In this connection it will be useful to notice the observations made by the Honble Apex Court, where the claim was made on the ground that a similar order had been passed by a statutory authority in favour of another person. In Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jagjit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705, it was held as follows in para-8 of the reports: ....... if the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal and unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. ...... The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law-indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law-but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. ..... Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. 12.Again in Secretary Jaipur Development Authority V. Daulatmal Jain, 1997(1) SCC 35, it was observed as follows in para-24 of the reports: Article 14 proceeds on the premises that a citizen had legal and valid right enforceable at law and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such persons cannot be discriminated to deny the same benefit. The rational relationship and legal back up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated. If some persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from the clutches of law, similar persons cannot plead nor the Court can countenance that benefit had from infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained. Can one illegality be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts? Answer is obviously, no. 13. In Special Leave Petition No. 4059 of 2000: Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh and another, decided on 12.3.2001, the Honble Apex Court strongly denounced the order of the High Court granting bail to the co-accused on the ground of parity in a heinous offence and while cancelling the bail granted by the High Court it observed that:- The High Court on being moved, has considered the application for bail and without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record as well as the gravity of offence released the accused-respondents on bail, since the co-accused, who had been ascribed similar role, had been granted bail earlier. 14. The Apex Court in the aforesaid law report has further observed:- Suffice it to say that for a serious charge where three murders have been committed in broad day light, the High Court has not applied its mind to the relevant materials, and merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, have been released on bail earlier, have granted bail to the present accused respondents. It is true that State normally should have moved this Court against the order in question, but at the same time the power of this Court cannot be fettered merely because the State has not moved, particularly in a case like this, where our conscience is totally shocked to see the manner in which the High Court has exercised its power for release on bail of the accused respondents. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may prejudice the accused in trial. But we have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from gross illegality and is an order on total non-application of mind and the judgement of this Court referred to earlier analysing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 cannot be of any use as we are not exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr.P.C. 15. In the case of Salim Vs. State of U.P. 2003 ALL. L. J. 625, this Court has held that parity can not be the sole ground for bail. 16. Again in the case of Zubair Vs. State of U.P. 2005(52) ACC 205, this Court observed that there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. 17. The matter of granting bail on the principle of parity was considered by this Court in Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1996 A. Cr. R.867 also. The following observations made in para 16 of the report at page 871 are worth mentioning:- The orders granting, refusing or cancelling bail are orders of interlocutory nature. It is true that discretion in passing interim orders should be exercised judicially but rule of parity is not applicable in all the cases, where one or more accused have been granted bail or similar role has been assigned inasmuch as bail is granted on the totality of facts and circumstances of a case. Parity can not be a sole ground and is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. Some of the circumstances have been enumerated in the Supreme Court Decision in Gur Charan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179. 18. Although the Honble Apex Court has granted bail making reference of the principle of parity in Izrahul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat 2009 (3) JT 385 and in Fida Hussain Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (2) JIC 312 (SC), the order of granting anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge was maintained after setting aside the order of High Court cancelling the bail granted by Sessions Judge and in this case also, reference of principle of parity has been made, but in both these case, merit of the case was also considered by the Honble Apex Court. Hence, in my opinion, both these cases can not be said to be the authority to hold that parity is sole ground for granting bail in all cases. It is nowhere held as a binding precedent in these cases that if bail has been granted by one Judge to any accused, then another Judge is also bound to grant bail to other similarly placed accused in all cases on the basis of the principle of parity without considering the merit. It is well settled that a judgement of a Court is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it and judgement of the Court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclids Theorem nor as if it was a statute. The Honble Apex Court has held in Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra & another AIR 2009 SC 628 that it is well settled that a judgment of a Court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclids Theorem nor as if it was a statute. 19. On the subject of precedents, Lord Halsbury, L.C. said in Quinn vs. Leathern, 1901 AC 495:- Now before discussing the case of Allen vs. Flood (1898 ) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all. 20. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & others (1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide paragraph 18) the Honble Apex Court observed:- The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. 21. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palittana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide paragraph 59, the Honble Apex Court observed:- It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 22. As held in Bharat Petrolieum Corporation Ltd. & another vs. N.R. Vairamani & another (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment the Honble Apex Court also observed:- Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision of which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclids Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgment. They interpret words of statutes: their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. (Emphasis supplied) 23. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton (1951 AC 737 at page 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:- The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge. 24. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid Said, Lord Atkins speech................ is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition: it will require qualification in new circumstances, Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062, observed: One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell,J. as if it were an Act of Parliament. 25. In Herringion vs. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said: There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. The following words of Lords Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo, J.) by matching the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which said of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the said branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. (Emphasis supplied) 26. The same view was taken by the Honble Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V.), Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 946 and in Government of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Gowramma & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 863. 27. In view of the observations made in aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that on granting bail by one Judge to any accused, another Judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly place co-accused on the basis of the principle of parity without considering the merit. As held by Division Bench of this court in Chander @ chandra Vs. State of U.P. (supra), if the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle, then another Judge is not bound to release the similarly placed ascused on bail and it is open to him to reject the bail application before him, as no judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to main consistency. Therefore, in present case also, merely on the basis of the principle of parity, the applicants cannot be released on bail and the bail application of the applicants has to be considered on merit. 28. On merit, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased had died due to the injuries caused by fire arms and hence, on this ground, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail, because injuries by fire arms are alleged to have been caused by co-accused Santosh Singh and Shankar Yadav, whereas the applicants are alleged to have caused injuries by axes. It was also submitted in this context that injuries caused by axes were not fatal to the deceased, as no vital organ of the body was damaged by the injuries alleged to have been caused by axes. 29. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that ante mortem injuries no. 3, 4 and 5, which are incised wounds, are not possible to be caused by axes, because these injuries were only bone deep. 30. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicants was that in addition to incised wounds and fire arm injuries, lacerated wounds (ante mortem injuries no. 1, 2 and 14) were also found on the person of deceased at the time of postmortem examination, as is evident from the postmortem report (Annexure-2) and since these lacerated wounds cannot be caused by axes, hence the case of prosecution becomes doubtful, because explanation of these lacerated wounds has not been furnished by the prosecution. 31. Regarding the injuries of injured Smt. Basant Raja, wife of the deceased Raj Bhan, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that she did not sustain any injury caused by fire arm and hence on this ground, her presence on the spot becomes doubtful. 32. It was further submitted by learned counsel that there was no occasion for the witnesses to see the incident of causing injuries to the deceased, as the witnesses are said to have reached on the place of incident on hearing hue and cry and hence, statements of the alleged witnesses do not carry any weight. 33. It was also submitted by learned counsel that the applicants are languishing in jail since 1.8.2008 and hence on the basis of long detention period in jail, they are entitled to be released on bail, because due to delay in trial, their fundamental right of speedy trial, envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated. 34. The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned AGA contending that specific role of causing injuries to the deceased by means of axes has been attributed to both the applicants and hence in this heinous crime of day light murder, the applicants should not be released on bail. 35. About the ante mortem lacerated wounds shown in the postmortem report, it was submitted by learned AGA that these injuries can be caused by giving blows from blunt side of axes and as such there is no material inconsistency in FIR and medical evidence. 36. It was also submitted by learned AGA that the injured Basant Raja had sustained fire arm injuries, as is evident from her injury report (annexure-3) and hence her presence on the spot can not be doubted. 37. I have carefully gone through the entire case diary and material on record. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show the complicity of the applicants in the incident of committing murder of Raj Bhan Singh. Both the applicants are said to be armed with axes. Specific role of causing injuries to the deceased by the applicants by means of axes has been assigned in the FIR and statement of witnesses. Serious ante mortem injuries, which can be caused by giving blows by axes, were found on vital parts of the body of deceased at the time of postmortem examination, as is evident from postmortem report (annexure-2). From para 20 and 21 of the bail application, it is revealed that both the applicants have criminal history and being on bail, they again participated in the incident of committing murder. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and keeping in view the specific role assigned to the applicants for causing injuries to the deceased by axes, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, both the applicants in this heinous crime of day light murder do not deserve bail. 38. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Honble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 39. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 40. The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicants and other accused persons within a period of six months making sincere, and avoiding unnecessary adjournments and applying the provisions of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 41. SSP Lalitpur also is directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the court concerned and it must be ensured that witnesses are produced in the sessions trial arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2008 of P.S. Poora Kala, District-Lalitpur. 42. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and SSP Lalitpur for necessary action. Dated:26th August, 2009
                   
                     

                     

Court Delhi High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 2.4.2014- Judgement-- Nitish Katara Murder Case- After hearing Mr. Ram Jethmalani Senior Counsel for Vishal Yadav, Mr. U.R Lalit Senior Counsel for Vikas Yadav and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Kapoor learned counsel for Sukhdev Appellant the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Dismissed all the appeals.   Read Judgement

Court Guwahati High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 06 Nov-2013-"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946."--GUWAHATI HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANRVs.GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Appeal ---Select---W.P.(C)--4770/2012
Act Constitution of India --Section: 
Head Note Conclusion: "We have held that the Delhi Legislative Assembly did not have the legislative competence to amend the Court Fees Act,1870. We have also held that the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 adversely impacts the Part-III rights and results in violation of Article 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India….   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 13 sept.2013-"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments.."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 13/9/2013: Held,"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments that have been highlighted above and therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and is liable to be reversed." - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 3/9/2013: Hostility of witnesses - Hon'ble Court took serious note-Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 2 Sept.2013- The earlier rejections of the bail prayer of the appellant were without following the required mandatory provisions.-All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note 2 Aug.2013-"Two of non-fatal injuries on deceased were simple in nature which also is clear indication that there was no unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder"   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Vijay Narayan Misra v. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal4702 OF 2007
Act I.P.C. --Section: 147,148,302/149.
Head Note "It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."- Allahabad High Court relied upon Apex Court's judgement.-2.8.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties State of U.P. V. Avdesh
Appeal Criminal Appeal4681 of 2011
Act I.P.C. --Section: 302,376.
Head Note Directions issued,"whenever there is slightest suspicion the police should not hesitate in registering the crime also under section 376 IPC, and not show the crime only as a murder"-Allahbad High Court. Dated 9.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Ram Ashish Gour & Others v. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal4505 OF 2012
Act I.P.C. --Section: 302 read with 34.
Head Note "Death reference rejected"-Allahabad High Court.Dated8.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Vinod & others v. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal3587 of 2006
Act I.P.C. --Section: 148,302/149.
Head Note "Cherge not framed-Effect analysed"-Allahabad High Court. Dated 3.5.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Hausila Prasad and another ...Appellants VERSUS State of U.P. and another ...Respondents
Appeal Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.1565 of 1982
Act Evidence Act. --Section: 65
Head Note Without establishing genuiness, photo can not be admitted in secondary evidence : Allahabad High Court- Dated 23/2/2012.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shaukin Vs, State of U.P.
Appeal Writ Petition17410/2011
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 41(1)B, 41A
Head Note Police not to arrest accused persons for offences punishable upto imprisionment upto 7 years - provisions of 41(1)b,41A discussed and directions issued - Allahabad High Court - Dated 11.10.2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Akash Kumar Sharma And Another Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Writ Petition19497 of 2011
Act 482 Cr.P.C. , 40 to 44 Evidence Act --Section: 40 to 44 Evidence Act.
Head Note Applicability of Section 40 to 44 Evidence Act- "A Division Bench of this Court in Km. Rinki vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (3) JIC 267 (All.) (D.B.) and Hon'ble Single Judge in Raj Dularey Shukla v. State, 2006 (1) JIC 887 (All.) also propounded the same principle and held that if some of the accused are acquitted in a trial separately held, the other accused is not entitled to the benefit of acquittal order and his case is to be decided separately on the basis of the evidence adduced during his trial. 13. The aforesaid decisions have settled the legal position that judgments of courts of justice may be relevant under any of the provisions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. In other words, if any judgment, order or decree of a court does not fulfill requirements of any of the aforesaid sections, it has no relevancy and must be held to be irrelevant. It is also well settled that every trial has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial itself, therefore, the previous judgment of acquittal rendered in a trial, if it is not relevant under any of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act has no relevancy in the subsequent trial being held against co-accused and he can not be permitted to claim any advantage of such judgment, which is merely an opinion of the judge on the basis of the evidence led in the previous trial. The only relevancy of such judgment is to decide the question of applicability of bar to the subsequent trial under section 300 of the Code as section 40 of the Evidence Act makes the previous judgment relevant only for such purposes and not otherwise. In such matters, sections 41 to 44 of the Evidence Act also have no application. In this view of the matter the proceeding of the session trial being held against the petitioners can not be quashed on the basis of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of co-accused persons."- Allahabad High Court - Dated 1 9/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Smt. Tara Devi and another ......................Appellants Versus State of U.P. ........................................Respondent.
Appeal Criminal Appeal109/2011
Act Cr.P.C. --Section: 389
Head Note Interiem Bail pending final disposal of Bail u/s 389 Cr.P.C. - "Otherwise also General Rules (Criminal), applicable to lower courts and High Court Rules, applicable to high court, both provide for giving of notice of the bail application to the public prosecutor and as a well ingrained practise hearing of public prosecutor in matter of consideration of bail applications has become the rule of law. Consequently the law relating to the procedure to be followed in matters of consideration of bail applications prior to conviction holds good for post-conviction bail applications also. In this respect a full bench of our court in Smt.Amarawati's case(Supra) has held that interim bail pending consideration of final bail is permissible. It has been held therein as under- "40. We again make it clear that the learned Sessions Judge in his discretion can hear and decide the bail application under Section 439 on the same day of its filing provided notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, or he may not choose to do so. This is entirely a matter in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge. There may also be cases where the learned Sessions Judge on the material available before him may decide to grant interim bail as he may feel that while he has sufficient material for giving interim bail he required further material for grant of final bail. In such cases also he can in his discretion, grant interim bail and he can hear the bail application finally after a few days. All these are matters which should ordinarily be left to his discretion." The aforesaid opinion by this court got it's approval by the apex court inLal kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others: (2009) SCC 437 wherein it has been held by the apex court as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Amarawati v. State of U.P. in which a seven-Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. We fully agree with the view of the High Court in Amarawati case and we direct that the said decision be followed by all courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar Case. Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar Case." Thus from the above discussion the law has been crystallised that pending consideration of final bail prayer an accused can be granted interim bail and hence the answer to the mooted question is that the proviso to section 389 of the Code does put an embargo nor does it curtails power of appellate court to grant interim bail. A Proviso cannot take away right conferred by parent provision and has to be read down to harmonise it with the parent section. On this aspect support can be had from apex court decision in Dadu alias Tulsidas(Supra) wherein Apex Court has observed as under:- "Providing a right of appeal but totally disarming the Court from granting interim relief in the form of suspension of sentence would be unjust, unfair and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution particularly when no mechanism is provided for early disposal of the appeal. The pendency of criminal litigation and the experience in dealing with pending matters indicate no possibility of early hearing of the appeal and its disposal on merits at least in many High Courts. As the present is not the occasion to dilate on the causes for such delay, we restrain ourselves from that exercise. In this view of the matter, the appellate powers of the Court cannot be denuded by Executive or judicial process".- Allahabad High Court - Dated 14/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Pandav Sarkar Versus State of U.P
Appeal Criminal Appeal.8090 of 2007
Act N.D.P.S.Act --Section: 20(b)(ii)(c)
Head Note Non Compliance of Section 8(c),42(1)(2),50,57 N.D.P.S.Act and 100,165,313 Cr.P.C.- Its effect - Fatal to Prosecution.
Case Laws Discussed:
1.State of Rajasthan versus Shanti: AIR 2010 SC 43
2.Sarju versus State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 3214
3.Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2009 (10) SCALE 255]
4.Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
[(2000) 2 SCC 513]
5. Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 692]
6.Dilip versus Sate of M.P. :AIR 2007 SC 369
7.State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299]
8.State of West Bengal Versus Babu Chakraborty : AIR 2004 SC 4324
9.State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299
10.State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172,Constitution Bench
11.Union Of India Versus Shah Alam and others : AIR 2010 SC 1785
12.Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2006 AIR SCW 6246)
13.State of Punjab versus Hari Singh: AIR 2010 SC 1966
14.Avtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2002 (7) SCC 419)
15.Ganesh Gogoi versus State of Assam : AIR 2009 SC 2955
16.Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others - (2000) 8 SCC 740
17.Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar: AIR 2009 SC (Suppl) 1439 - Allahabad High Court.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties We, The People versus Union of India and others
Appeal Writ Petition3659 (M/B) of 2011(PIL)
Act --Section: 
Head Note C.B.I.directed to investigate CMO`s Murders - Allahabad High Court - Dated 29/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Sachchidanand (Sachchey) versus State of U.P and others
Appeal Writ Petition6601 of 2011(PIL)
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302.
Head Note Dr. Sachan`s Murder Case - Investigation ordered to be conducted by C.B.I.- Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court-Dated 14/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Suresh Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal1354 of 2007
Act NDPS Act. --Section: 
Head Note Notification No. (S.I.2942 [E]) Dated 18.11.2009 issued by the Government of India, providing that not only the weight of Heroin found on analysis but the entire substance is to be taken into account while deciding the quantity -

Held "This notification can not be applied retospectively and has no aplication in instant case"-
Bail Allowed.-Allahabad High Court - Dated 30/05/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Govind Hari Swamy Vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal5544 of 2006
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304-B
Head Note "Exhibits Ka 15 and 16 have been got proved and exhibited by the prosecution itself and therefore it can not now resile from it`s contents." - Documents produced by Prosecution binding on them - Alladabad High Court - Dated 25/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit......................Revisionist Versus State of U.P...........................................Opposite Party.
Appeal Misc PetitionCriminal Revision 1691 of 2011
Act Juvenile Justice Act --Section: 12
Head Note Bail to Juvenile : "Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right"-Section 12 analysed - Allahabad High Court - Dated 24.05.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Amar Singh................v...............State of U.P and others & Shiv Kant Tripathi........V ............State of U.P and others
Appeal Misc PetitionCRIMINAL MISC WRIT PETITION NO 24225 OF 2009 &4909 of 2010
Act Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code,Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 --Section: 
Head Note Directions to CBI to investigate any other offence-" The direction to CBI to investigate "any other offence" is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person`s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21"- Allahabad High Court- Dated 20/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Tabrez Ahmad Civil Judge (JD)..................Petitioner Versus State of U.P and others...........................Respondents
Appeal Misc PetitionCriminal Misc (Public Interest Litigation) Writ Petition No 21847 of 2010
Act --Section: 
Head Note False Case against Civil Judge J.D.,Nazibabad by U.P. Police in connivance with Administration - " We are constrained to observe that it is indeed a serious matter that even a judicial officer has not been spared and every effort has been made to browbeat him by the administration.":Allahabad High Court-Dated 17/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Amit Kumar @ Mittal Vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Misc PetitionCRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8207 of 2011
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 354
Head Note Allahabad High Court directs Central and U.P.Govt.to amend sec. 354 I.P.C.triable by court of sessions and non-bailable:"Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such crimes of sexual violence in the State of U.P., in Delhi and in other places we think that it is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue, and consider imposing stringent laws for putting a check on such crimes of sexual violence against women and children. We therefore recommend that the State of U.P. and the Union of India consider amending the provisions of section 354 IPC and the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing a higher sentence for the offence and for making it non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session. Copy of this order may be forwarded to the Law Commissions, of U.P and the Centre, and also to the Law( Secretary) U.P. and the Union of India within 15 days for appropriate action and recommendations." - Allahabad High Court - Dated 09/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Surjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
Appeal ---Select---Criminal Revision No.906 OF 2011
Act Juvenile Act. --Section: 18,20 Juvenile Act. & 373 Criminal Procedure Code.
Head Note If the trial of a juvenile offender has already commenced, the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act will have applicability.
Perusal of the record in the instant revision indicates that the trial was pending since last seven years. The trial is at the fag-end as the entire evidences of the prosecution and the accused have already been over. It is at this stage of the fag-end of the trial that the revisionist has prayed vide Paper No. 275 Kha to send his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, which prayer has been refused by impugned order dated 8.2.2011.
It seems that only to delay the trial and lingering on the proceedings of a murder and an attempt to murder case, the said application was filed by the revisionist. When the evidences were being led and the accused were cross examining the witnesses, no grievance was raised by the revisionist for sending his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. Much of the water has already been flown and it is too late in the day for the revisionist to rue that his matter has not been transferred to juvenile Justice Board. Opinion of the trial Judge as is recorded in the impugned order dated 8.2.2011, cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
This revision being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed:Allahabad High Court.Dated 30/03/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Laxmi Narain Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Appeal Writ Petition85 of 2011
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 307
Head Note Transfer Petition -"The sessions trial is about to conclude. Most of the arguments have been heard by Mr. Ramashraya Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, at this juncture, transfer of the case would not only be improper but would also result in causing delay in the disposal of the case. It is true that the presiding officer has closed the arguments and required the accused to file written arguments but still it is open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to permit the accused to make oral submissions also. It is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed accordingly if any request for oral submission is made from the accused persons or their counsel, whose arguments (oral submissions) have not been heard. ... For the reasons discussed above, the transfer application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed" : Allahabad High Court. ________________________________________   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shashi Kant Singh and another Versus State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal8116 of 2008
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note Appeal against conviction under 307 IPC-Medical Report cooked up-Investigation not fair-313 Cr.PC not complied with-appeal allowed-conviction set aside.- Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties HIRA LAL ..... Appellant Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent
Appeal Criminal AppealCRL. A. No.326/1997
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note There was a time gap of about three hours between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen together. Even otherwise the last seen evidence has to be connected with some other corroboration.
... PW14 had only seen the deceased along with the accused, merely this evidence was not sufficient to prove the circumstance of last seen.
18. Therefore, we discard the testimony of PW14 as we have found serious improbability in the version of the last seen evidence
It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to prove all the incriminating circumstances beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the circumstances so proved should complete the chain of events linking the accused with commission of the crime. There should not be left any chinks in such a chain and no circumstance should be of such a nature which could lead to any inference of innocence of the accused. All circumstances so alleged and proved must show the involvement of the accused in the crime.
28. It is settled law that if the motive which is set out by the prosecution is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt the other incriminating circumstantial evidence may lose its importance and it may lead the court to draw an inference that perhaps the appellant was not involved in this crime.
Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted:Delhi High Court-MANMOHAN SINGH, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Ajay Versus State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal AppealCRIMINAL REVISION 1440 OF 2011
Act SC/ST ACT --Section: 
Head Note Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code: No person can be added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after closer of the case:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Ram Vilash Chauhan & Others Vs. State Of U.P.& Others
Appeal Criminal AppealCRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1409 of 2001
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 190
Head Note Cognizance of offence-Passing of the summoning order without obtaining relevant materials in support of the information,not proper. Summoning order quashed:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Chhattisgarh High Court
Parties Pijush Piyush Babun Guha ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh ...Respondents


Appeal Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No 20 of 2011 AND Criminal Appeal No 54 of 2011
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: Section 389 , Section 313, Section 124A, Section 39
Head Note Hostile Witness- Binding on prosecution- CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED-10 FEB 2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties MAHAVIR SINGH … Appellant

versus

STATE ... Respondent

Appeal Criminal AppealCRL.A. 328/1997
Act Indian Evidence Act --Section: 
Head Note The distinction between the nature of burden that rests on an accused under Section 105, Evidence Act to establish a plea of self-defence and the one cast on the prosecution by Section 101 to prove its case is overlooked-The appellant has been able to establish a preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea of private defence-The appeal is allowed. --DELHI HIGH COURT-JUDGEMENT DATED- 19.1.2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties YOGESH … Appellant

versus

THE STATE ... Respondent


Appeal Criminal AppealCRL. A. No.257/97
Act Criminal Procdure Code,1973, Indian Penal Code --Section: Section 302, 364 IPC
Head Note NO MOTIVE-RECOVERY NOT FREE DOUBTS-CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCE NOT COMPLETE-LAST SEEN DOUBTED-APPEAL ALLOWED- DELHI HIGH COURT-DATED 04.01.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Petitioner :- Father Thomas

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another

Petitioner Counsel :- Samit Gopal,K.D. Tewari,M.K. Shukla,P.R. Maurya,Rajiv Sisodiya,S.S. Chaturvedi

Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Connected with

Criminal Revision No. 1731 of 2001

Lal Chand Maurya Vs. State of UP and others

and

Criminal Revision No. 1581 of 2001

Jas Ram Kushwaha Vs. State of UP and others

and

Criminal Revision No. 1727 of 2001

Mohd. Tahir and others Vs. State of UP and others

and

Criminal Revision No. 1656 of 2001

Swaroop and others Vs. State of UP and others

and

Criminal Revision No. 1658 of 2001

Naresh and others Vs. State of UP and others

Appeal ---Select---CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1640 of 2001
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 156(3)
Head Note 156(3)Cr.pc-Interlocutory Order-no criminal revision will lie against the orders passed by the Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C- ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-FULL BENCH-DATED 20 DEC 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Rakhi Sawant....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P and others...Respondents

Appeal Misc PetitionCriminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22127 of 2010
Act Indian Penal Code ,1860 --Section: 306,504,120-B. I.P.C
Head Note FIR -Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR - Allahabad High Court- Dated 10/12/2010   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION THROUGH AJAY CHAUDHARY ..... (Petitioner) versus STATE ..... (Respondant)
Appeal Writ Petition468/2010
Act CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE --Section: 207
Head Note FIR-to be displayed on Delhi Police website- ---Delhi High Court passes directions : (A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours. (C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours of lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances. (E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Delhi Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. A decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also be duly communicated to the Area magistrate. (F) The word =sensitive‘ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. (G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person. (H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee within eight weeks from today. (I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application. (J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Delhi Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Anju Raikwar and others......Petitioners Versus State of U.P and others....Respondents
Appeal Misc PetitionCriminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21331 of 2010
Act Indian Penal Code ,1860 --Section: 306,504,120-B.I.P.C
Head Note First Information Report- Sec 306/504/120B IPC- FIR-Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR-Order-Allahabad High Court, Dated-29-11-2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Viveka Nand Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Appeal Writ PetitionC No. 36881 of 2008
Act Civil Procedure Code,1908 --Section: 
Head Note A word used at different place in the Act or Rule may have different meaning according to its context--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-- Order Dated - 26/10/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench -Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal,Justice D V Sharma .J,J,J
Parties The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others Versus Gopal Singh Visharad and others
Appeal SuitSuit No.12-61
Act Civil Procedure Code,1908 --Section: 
Head Note AYODHYA RAM JANM BHOOMI-BABRI MASZID TITLE CASE--held--Ram Lala Idol not to be removed- Sunni Wakf Board suit dismissed.-- 1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram? The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. 2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom? The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. 3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple? The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. 4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949? The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949. 2 5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred? O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time. 6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard? It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.......Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Chanan Singh & Ors. ......Applicants-Appellants.

Versus

State of Haryana. ......Respondent

Appeal Bails32749 of 2010
Act Indian Penal Code Code, --Section: Sections 308, 437,323,149, IPC,
Head Note BAIL ALLOWED-Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED 23rd SEPTEMBER 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Harendra Singh Recruit Constable 45 Bn. P.A.C. Aligarh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Appeal Misc PetitionCIVIL WRIT - A No. 51448 of 2010
Act Civil Procedure Code,1908 --Section: 
Head Note No opportunity is required to be given if selection is made on the basis of a forged marksheet--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order Dated - 25/8/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Rishipal Vs. State of UP
Appeal Criminal AppealCrl. Appeal No. 1748 of 2008
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note Witness Protection : Witness protection programme is an important aspect of criminal justice system: without it, no reforms are possible. If witnesses are afraid to come forward then irrespective of any measures justice cannot be administered. This case is a pointer - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Ram Pyare and others Vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal AppealCriminal Jail Appeal No. 5622 of 2007
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304 II
Head Note There was no pre-meditation or pre-plan on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, and the occurrence had taken place when the deceased, with another had entered the field of the appellant and engaged himself in an altercation with the appellant when the appellant had refused to part with bitterguard. Having regard to the attending circumstances in which the incident had taken place, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Laxmi And Others Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Criminal AppealCRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. 2182 of 1982
Act CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE --Section: Sec-162(2) crpc
Head Note Dying declaration before police is admissible u/s 162 (2) CrPC.--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order - Judgment/Order Dated - 16/4/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Mohd. Farukh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Appeal Criminal Appeal271/2010
Act INDIAN PENAL CODE --Section: 302
Head Note Intention to Cause Death : He who inflicts 13 stab wounds on the vital part of the body of a human being using a dagger having a blade of 21 cms length would certainly be attributed with the intention to cause the death of the victim : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Babu Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal62/1984
Act Indian Penal Code/ Evidence Act --Section: 302 IPC/27 Evi. Act.
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of body and cycle of deceased from the appellant-witnesses reliable-Conviction Maintained : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Smt. Saritha Rao & Ors. vs. Y. Raghunath Rao & Anr.
Appeal Writ PetitionCM(M) 188/2010
Act Constitution of India, Limitation Act. --Section: 227
Head Note Period of Limitation : The period of limitation would start only from the date when ultimately, it was held by the competent Court that the criminal prosecution was a false prosecution. It is well-know maxim of law that an appeal/ revision is continuity of the criminal trial and criminal trial finally comes to an end when the last Court i.e. the Supreme Court, give its verdict: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta
Appeal Criminal Appeal171/2010
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304 II
Head Note Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder : Accused causing death by his lisence weapon in marriage ceremony-convicted u/s 304II IPC for imprisionment of eight months already undergone and pay 3.5 lacs to dependant-2005 (116) DLT 634 Nehru Jain Vs. State NCT of Delhi Followed : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Sajjan Kumar Vs. State through C.B.I.
Appeal Bails306/2010, 311/2010, 312/2010 and 313/2010
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note Anticipatory Bail : Anticipatory Bail can not be denied merely on the ground that charge-sheet has been filed or the court has taken the cognizance- bail allowed- Supreme Court Followed : Delhi High Court- 26/02/2010.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Surindra Singh Vs. State
Appeal Criminal Appeal515/2001
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence : : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Calcutta High Court
Parties Syed Sabuj Khandakar -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Another
Appeal Criminal AppealC.R.A. No. 364 of 2005
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 376
Head Note Delay in lodging FIR in Rape case : i) When there was considerable delay and the delay was not properly explained benefit must go to the defence. ii) A rape victim may think seriously before lodging complaint to the police as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. Hence, delay might be possible in the case of a like nature. iii) If the complainant was victim and was injured in the incident delay in lodging the complaint would not be fatal : Calcutta High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Sanjay Vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal4865 of 2009
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note Case of circumstantial evidence : Whether the circumstances against the appellant are established and lead only to his guilt or not- all circumstances must be proved : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Pintoo & Others Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Bails22094 of 2009
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 439
Head Note Cancellation of Bail : In Mubarak Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: 2004 (2) SCC 362, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi:2005 (8) SCC 21, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan: 2004(7) SCC 528 it was observed that even when there is a prima facie apprehension of the likelihood of an attempt to derail the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses, the Court would be fully justified in cancelling the bail. Here as we have seen the eye witness, had actually turned hostile, and it was not only a case of an apprehension that an attempt would be made to tamper with the witnesses.Followed: Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shom Raj Shukla Vs. Public Service Commission U.P. and others
Appeal Writ PetitionSpecial Appeal No.17 of 2010
Act U.P. Act No.4 of 1994 --Section: Section 3 (6)
Head Note Out of 17 general posts, 12 posts have been filled-up from the candidates belonging to the reserved category-on merit:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Karamjit Singh ..Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab ..Respondent.


Appeal BailsCRM-M 27226 of 2009
Act Criminal Procdure Code,1973 --Section: Section 438 Cr.PC
Head Note ANTICIPATORY BAIL-Section 438 CR.P.C-Inconsistency in medical report-Bail Allowed- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED-2OTH NOV 2009   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Mohammad Kadeer Vs. Union Of India Through Narcoties Control Bureau,Mahanagar,Lucknow
Appeal Bails 5199 of 2009
Act N.D.P.S.Act --Section: 37(1)(b)(ii)
Head Note Recovery Of Heroine:The recovery was made from the basement of building belonging to Mohd.Mobin Khan. It is also very strange that why would the applicant plant the recovered heroine and then would make a cool statement before officials that he himself had planted the heroinea:Allahabad High Court-Bail Granted   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shyam Bahadur Mau Vs. State
Appeal Bails5257 of 2008
Act N.D.P.S.Act --Section: 50,57
Head Note Recovery of 20 Kg. Charas- Bail Refused-Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450 , Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 321,State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350: 2005 (1) EFR 2008 Discussed : Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Parties Plastiblends India Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Appeal Civil AppealINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1282 OF 2007
Act Income Tax Act --Section: Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act,
Head Note For the purposes of deduction under Chapter VIA, the gross total income has to be computed inter alia by deducting the deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Act, including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act, even though the assessee has computed the total income under Chapter IV by disclaiming the current depreciation : Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Jwahir Sharma & Another Vs. State Of U.P. & Another
Appeal Writ Petition14370 of 2009
Act SC/ST Act --Section: 482 Cr.P.C.
Head Note chargesheet for the offence under section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act submitted by the Circle Officer concerned on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Sub-Inspector not valid   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties MOHD. RAHIS KHAN Vs. State
Appeal Criminal Appeal642/2001
Act IPC --Section: 302
Head Note The proximity of place of last seen vis-à-vis the place of murder having snapped in the instant case, we are of the opinion that in the facts of this case, it would be unsafe to conclude against the guilt of the appellant on the solitary circumstance of his seen in the company of the deceased in the house of the father of the deceased which house is at a distance of about 2 km from the place where the deceased: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Smt. Shabnam Vs.State of U.P.
Appeal Misc Petition21606/09
Act Cri.P.Code --Section: 156[3]
Head Note Application of judicial mind:Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, has passed the impugned order ignoring all judicial discipline. She has not at all applied her judicial mind and had only referred some of the judgements of this court, which are contrary to the opinion of the apex court, rendered in many decisions. Judicial order should be passed by applying judicial mind. By this judgement, I severely criticise the conduct of Judicial Magistrate, II, Saharanpur and record my serious displeasure against her order for passing such type of illegal orders. Judicial Magistrate II Court No. 14, Saharanpur is warned for future and is cautioned to be careful in passing judicial orders. She should have thought of that rape not only causes physical injury to the victim, but it leave scare on mind for life long and implant the victim with such ignominy, which is worst than her death and I say no more. Though, I was inclined to refer this matter to Administrative Committee for taking action against Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, but only for the reason that she is a young officer and have long career ahead, I refrain from such a stringent action:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Toran Yadav And Another Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal 7555 of 2009
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 
Head Note On granting bail by one judge to any accused, another judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the basis of parity :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Ram Ratan---Appellant Vs. State of U.P--Opposite party
Appeal Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.4371 of 2006
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304 Part-1
Head Note Murder-single blow-intention to murder absent-partly allowed-convicted u/s 304 part 1-sentence of 7 years R.I. implanted: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent
Appeal BailsCriminal Misc. No.M-21511 of 2009 (O&M)
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 438
Head Note Pre-arrest bail prayer refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties CANBANK MUTUAL FUND Vs.STATE of DELHI & ORS.
Appeal Misc PetitionCrl.L.P. 7/2007
Act Negotiable Instrument Act --Section: 138
Head Note Limitation- Complaint barred by-calculation of mandatory 15 days period for notice under Negotiable Instrument Act: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Sahim Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal1169/2006
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302
Head Note 302 IPC- FIR anti-timed-informant presence doubtful-investigation tainted-conviction set aside 302 IPC:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Pankaj Rai Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal341 of 2006
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304-B
Head Note 304-B-Sentence of life imprisionment-Cause of death not known-Sentence reduced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Deepak Kapila .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent
Appeal BailsCrl. Misc. No. M-18527 of 2009
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 438
Head Note Anticipatory Bail of Unit Manager of ICICI Company Deepak Kapila rejected : Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Rajesh Kumar Verma ... Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
Appeal Writ Petition4357 (SS) of 2009
Act Constitution of India --Section: 226
Head Note Transfer Matters:In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 531], Article 226 of the Constitution of India not to be invoked:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Union of India Through the Secretary Finance and another vs.S.C. Jain
Appeal Writ Petition1648 of 2000
Act --Section: 
Head Note The degree of proof required in departmental enquiries is that of a preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is now well settled through a series of decisions by Apex Court: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Sunita Rani and others vs.State of Punjab and others
Appeal Writ Petition19857/2009
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 482
Head Note Protection of life and liberty-petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of their parents.Proof of age and marriage certificated produced. Directions to SSP to look representation and take action: Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Hardev Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
Appeal Misc PetitionM-19783 of 2009 (O&M)
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 482
Head Note Apprehending - arrest and also harassment by the police and family members of petitioner- both major and married-Directions to SSP for proctection of life and liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Kumari Ajra Khan.......Petitioner Versus State of UP and others.....Respondents
Appeal Writ PetitionCivil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 24382 of 2009
Act --Section: 
Head Note Adult woman entitle to live independely and not to be detained in Nari Niketan because matter communally sensitive or parents unwilling to take her: Allahabad High Court [D.B.]   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Parties Smt. Rajni Vishram Patil vs.C.B.I.& others
Appeal Writ PetitionCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1278 OF 2007
Act Constitution of India --Section: 226
Head Note The exercise of monitoring the investigation and the power vested in the High Court to issue a writ of continuing mandamus would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the investigation is so very unjust and unfair and is in unlawful exercise of statutory discretion, the court could interfere and monitor the investigation even after a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction: Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Bharat Singh ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent
Appeal BailsM-12489 of 2009(O&M)
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 498-A,406, 304-B, 34 IPC,
Head Note All the prosecution witnesses have been examined U/S 498-A,406,304-B,34 IPC, no ground for grant of bail made out.Bail refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Parties Balasaheb Changdeo Ghule vs.The State of Maharashtra
Appeal Criminal Appeal1158 OF 2003
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 304- B,498A
Head Note Dowery Death:The antemortem injuries establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand for Rs.40,000/- which the deceased’s father could not fulfill. Circumstances establish that the harassment was in connection with dowry demand. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act must, therefore, arise. The appellant’s failure to explain how the deceased received ante-mortem injuries provide an important link in the chain of circumstances. Conviction affirmed: Bombay High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Malkhan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others
Appeal Misc Petition31705/2009
Act Recovery under Electricity Act --Section: 8.1 Electricity Supply Code
Head Note Recovery could not be initiated against the petitioner under the statutory provisions of assessment on the ground of theft of electricity, until petitioner s objection is decided, as per Cl.8.1 Electricity Supply Code ,2005 : ALL.H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Akshi Singh (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Appeal Writ Petition.33039 of 2009
Act --Section: 
Head Note Only after the declaration of the result the petitioner has now started claiming that her candidature should be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates. This change cannot be permitted at such a belated stage.Petition dismissed: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Prem Shanker @ Nanhey Pahelwan vs. State of U.P.
Appeal Bails 2385 of 2009
Act NDPS Act --Section: 8/21
Head Note Small or commercial quantity of Narcotic Drug is to be determined on the basis of actual contents in such drug - percentage of heroin in the recovered contraband was found 31.25%, meaning thereby that actual weight of heroin in the recovered contraband comes 93.75 gm, which is below commercial quantity as per entry 56 of Notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by Central Government -Bail granted: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Parties Naz Foundation Petitioner vs.Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Appeal Writ Petition[WP(C)7455/2001]
Act IPC --Section: 377
Head Note Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex ....Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties 1.Khursheed 2.MajsadVs. State of U.P.
Appeal BailsCriminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 1199 of 2009
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 439
Head Note Second bail application on the same grounds is not maintainable : Allahabad High Court.-• Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. 1998(37) ACC 287, Gama and another v. State of U.P. 1986 (23) ACC 339, • State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao 1989(26) ACC 503(SC), • Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978 Cr. L. J. 651 (SC), • Shahzad Hasan Khan V. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan 1987(24) ACC 425(SC) , • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another 2005(51) ACC 727 (SC). , • Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115[SC]- Discussed.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Parties Pravin Vijaykumar Taware vs.The Special Executive Magistrate Baramati, District Pune.
Appeal Writ Petition2682 OF 2008
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 111
Head Note State Government shall immediately take steps to train its all Executive Magistrates so that they understand as to how the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be applied : Bombay HIgh Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties Preeti and another vs. State of Haryana and others
Appeal Writ PetitionCRM No. M-16349 of 2009
Act Criminal Procedure Code --Section: 482
Head Note In Petition to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar ordered to take an appropriate action on the petition: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shahnawaz @ Shanu Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Bails CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6248 of 2009
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 489-B and 489-C IPC
Head Note Whether the principle of parity can be the sole ground for granting Bail ? No :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Jag Narain & Others Vs. State Of U.P. & Another
Appeal Misc Petition CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5610 of 2005
Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 --Section: 397[2]
Head Note Revision against summoning order maintainable and not barred under sub section (2) of section 397 Cr.P.C.;Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Umacharan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Appeal Bails25957/2008
Act Indian Penal Code/UP gangster Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act --Section: 394/411 IPC, 2/3 UP Gangster Act, 7 criminal Law amendment act
Head Note Long incaricuration in jail during trail is not perse illegal and would not be voilative of article 21 of constitution of India.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Notice to the prospective accused is not required to be issued prior to passing the order under section 319 Cr.P.C.:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Merely ownership of the weapon did not makes out a case under Section 307 IPC and in any event Section 27 has no application.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties Uma Charan Awasthi Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Bails25957/2008
Act IPC,UP Gangerster Act,Criminal Law Amendement Act. --Section: 394/411 IPC .,2/3 UP Gangester Act,7 Criminal Law Amendement
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Parties Uma Charan Awasthi Vs. State Of U.P.
Appeal Bails25957/2008
Act IPC,UP Gangerster Act,Criminal Law Amendement Act. --Section: 394/411 IPC .,2/3 UP Gangester Act,7 Criminal Law Amendement
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Transfer Aplication- Supereme Court transfered the case to faimily court Banglore, where husband and wife last resided-Divorce petiton.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Death sentence in case of rape and murder of 10 years girl reduced to life inprisionment, case does not fall rare of rarest. Bachan Singh case followed.: SUPEREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Evidence did not attribute any overt act to the appellant. The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract aplicability of section 34 IPC, accused acquitted : supreme court   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note The mere fact that one of the members of the Board or the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police or the Panchayat has recommended release of the convict from jail, is by itself of no consequence. The recommendation is of the Board and not........:SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note SUB-BROKER CARRYING BUISNESS WITHOUT SEBI REGISTRATION EFFECT:POWERS OF TRIBUNAL IMPOSITION OF PENALTY -SCOPE OF: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Finding of trial judge regarding time of incident on the basis of stomach contents of deceased rejected,and high court view approved, conviction maintained: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Section 302 read with 149 IPC:The role attributed was throwing bricks towards house of Aurangjeb, death was caused by gun shot,although accused did not caused fatal blow to deceased,but conviction maintained with help of 149 IPC.As,the acquitted accused were not mere onlookers, but they were members of unlawful assembly and they also had taken active part in the incident by throwing bricks thereby causing injuries to the injured Aurangzeb and Smt. Akbari.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Absence of direct evidence of complicity of accused-319 cr.p.c. not be invoked.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note An apprentice is not an employee : Supereme Court   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Vicarious Liability u/s 34 IPC -Bail can not be refused :Allahabad High Court,Hon. Shiv Charan,J. Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Banks Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles can only be done through legal means- Banks not to resort to use of muscle power for recovery of loans and persistently bothering borrower at odd hours   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Dyeing recorded by SHO in presence of doctor of hospital accepted by Supreme Court to base conviction- rules regarding recording of dyeing declaration by magistrate held merely procedural.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Division Bench referance answered in Neera Yadev case.----Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 Criminal Procedure Code,120-B IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Delay in FIR, Lack of names of witnesses at first instance, Statement to CRPF withheld by prosecution- all these stereo type arguments discarded, in the circumstances of the case.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note In appropriate cases, interim bail may be granted by subordinate courts pending disposal of bail applications.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Aggressor has no right of private defence. Active participation is not essential FOR applicability of section 149 IPC.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Mentioning the names of accused and witensses is not the requirement of law. In case of direct evidence, absence of motive looses significance.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST not be attracted in cases where the offence committed under IPC is punishable less than ten years imprisonment.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Interest is payable even if possession is taken prior to notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Parties Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade vs.The State of Maharashtra
Appeal Criminal Appeal2160 OF 2005
Act Atrocities Act --Section: 3
Head Note Law laid down in Anant Vasantlal Sambre and Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni’s cases no more a good law to that extent.It is not a requirement under section 3 of the Atrocities Act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint: Bombay High Court-Full Bench   Read Judgement

Court
Parties Jeetu vs State of M.P.
Appeal Criminal Appeal679 OF 2006
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 302/324/326
Head Note Medical evidence inconsistent to oral eye witness account,Held"conviction u/s 302 IPC can not be maintained and altered to 326 IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note ALL. H.C.: Existence of an arbitration agreement is a sine quo non for invoking the jurisdiction of the court u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note S.C.:Question of law not framed by high court, so case remmitted back.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note Separate conviction and sentence under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor is illegal--Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All.H.C.;Magistrate having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence can not pass the order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All. H.C.:The Magistrate can pass order for further investigation on the final report.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All.H,C.:Carrying the cow, bull or bullock within the State for slaughtering is no offence under Cow Slaughter Act   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All. H.C.:Second or subsequent bail application can be considered on new ground or change of law.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All.H.C.:Participation of all the accused in criminal act by doing some overt act is not necessary to attract Section 34 of I.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Parties
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note All.H.C.:There is no parity in rejection of bail.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Parties STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. VIKRAM SINGH ETC
Appeal Criminal Appeal1/2007
Act Murder Referance --Section: 302 IPC
Head Note Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 accepted and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 (Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and others versus State of Punjab) dismissed:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Shailendra Kumar Ojha And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
Appeal Writ Petition
Act U.P., L.R.Manual.-Appointment and Renewal of Govt. Counsels. --Section: 
Head Note Held"(1) The respondents shall not consider the applications submitted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2) for the time being and keep the process of appointment in abeyance so far as the petitioners are concerned;
(2) Applications of the petitioners for renewal shall be considered first, as required under Para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual and to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order;
(3) While considering the applications for renewal, the findings of fact shall be recorded by the authority concerned as to whether initial appointment of the petitioners had been made in accordance with law and in case, answer is negative, the applications for renewal shall be rejected forthwith.
(4) In case, the applications of the petitioners or any of them is rejected and renewal is not made, the said vacancies shall be filled up by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Paras 7.03 and 7.06 of the L.R. Manual.
(5) The process shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today" : Allahabad High Court. Dated 14/11/2003.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Parties Virendra Pal Singh Rana vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
Appeal Writ Petition
Act U.P.,L.R.Manual --Section: 
Head Note Held,"In State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Government or a public body represent public interests, and hence, there is an obligation on them to engage the most competent lawyers.
Time, has, therefore, come when this practice must stop so that highly competent lawyers of integrity and sound knowledge of law are appointed as Government Counsels and for this purpose we recommend to the State Government to consult Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court and suitably amend the L.R. Manual accordingly. Till that is done, ordinarily the recommendation of the District Judge, in the matter of appointment/renewal of the Government Counsels in the District Court in the State must ordinarily be accepted.": Allahabad High Court (DB)-Dated 1
  Read Judgement

Court Gujarat High Court
Parties Koli Trikam Jivraj And Anr. vs The State Of Gujarat
Appeal Criminal Appeal
Act Indian Evidence Act --Section: 18
Head Note SECTION 18-EVIDENCE ACT- EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUGGESTION PUT IN CROSS EXAMINATION TO PROSECUTION WITNESS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL- NOT AN EVIDENCE--GUJARAT HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Parties Sh. K. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Union Public Service Commission & others.
Appeal Writ Petition
Act --Section: 
Head Note Candidate is Called for Interview but not Selected.   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Parties Miss. Mamta R Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Appeal
Act --Section: 
Head Note the applicant claiming that she was not called for interview despite possessing the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement published by the Commission and that the Commission can not shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher qualification and experience than those prescribed.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court - Vinod Prasad J.
Parties Nawal Kishor Tiwari..............................Revisionist Versus State of U.P.................................Opposite Party.
Appeal ---Select---Criminal Revision No.1604 of 2011
Act Indian Penal Code --Section: 294
Head Note Sentence and Compensation : Looking to the activity indulged into by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he does not deserve incarceration. How ever sentence has to be commensurate with the guilt of the accused. Judging from that angle it is detected that the illegal activity was carried out by the revisionist for a period of eighteen days. The maximum sentence, which has been provided under the Statute for offence under Section 294 IPC can extend to three months of imprisonment or with fine or with both. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the substantive sentence of the petitioner for two months R.I. is excessive and should be reduced and instead he should be implanted with heavy fine of Rs.30,000/- out of which compensation should be awarded to the the children for the agony suffered by them:Allahabad High Court - Dated 01/04/2011.   Read Judgement