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: 11-Oct-2011
Writ Petition  : 17410/2011
Criminal Procedure Code - Section: 41(1)B, 41A

Shaukin Vs, State of U.P.

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.

Judgement:
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. 46 
Case: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011 
Petitioner: Shaukin 
Respondent: State of UP and others 
Petitioner counsel: Mrs. Tabassum Hashimi, Ashwani Kumar Srivastava 
Respondent counsel: Government Advocate 

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J. 
Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan, J. 
1.A personal affidavit of the DGP, U.P. dated 11.10.11 has been filed and this Court is pleased to note that in compliance of our earlier order dated 15.9.11. the DGP, U.P. has issued a circular dated 3.10.11 addressed to all the regional IGs/ DIGs/ SSPs/SPs in-charge of all districts and departmental heads of other police units
to strictly enforce the newly introduced amendments, viz. sub-section 41(1)(b) and section 41 A Cr.P.C and the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 15.9.11 in Cr. Misc Writ Petiton No. 17410 of 2011, Shaukeen v State and order dated 23.9.11 in Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 18661/ 2011, Ram Abhilash and others v State. 
2.It was also pointed out in the circular that the investigating officers who file counter-affidavits before the High Court do not have any knowledge about these provisions and how they are to be applied. 
3.The following observations in the order dated 15.9.11 have been quoted in the DGP's circular: "Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the DGP, U.P. within one week by the registry. The DGP may circulate this order to all police stations and investigating officers in U.P. with directions to
ensure strict and honest compliance with the provisions of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C and to refrain from routinely arresting persons wanted in cases punishable by imprisonment up to 7 years, unless in particular cases the exceptional circumstances enumerated in section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. exist, after recording his reasons for arrest. Let the DGP submit his compliance report of this direction within three weeks." 
4.Annexure 2 to the DGP's affidavit in compliance of our dated 15.9.11 also contains the following endorsement from all 72 districts in U.P.: "
???? / ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??" 
5.The directions were issued by the DGP's circular dated 3.10.11 to the subordinate police officials to clarify that ordinarily the police shall not immediately arrest accused persons wanted in matters punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years. This limitation was subject to the exceptions mentioned in the aforesaid amended sections. 
6.By the present order we proceed to explain the import and meaning of the amended provisions 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C, and to give some illustrations where accused could be arrested straightaway on the lodging of the FIR, and other illustrations where immediate arrests may not be needed, because we think that in many cases the police is still routinely proceeding to arrest accused persons even if they are involved in offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment, in contravention of the express terms of sections 41(1)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C. 
7.It would be useful to extract the material provisions, sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A, which have been introduced by Act No. 5 of 2009, with effect from 1.11.2010 and also section 170(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here : 
41. When police may arrest without warrant. -- (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person -- 
(a)------------------ 
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:- 
(i) the police office has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; 
(ii) the police office is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-- 
(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or 
(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or 
(C) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or 
(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or 
(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, 
and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing. 
Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. - 

41 A. Notice of appearance before police officer- (1) The police officer shall in all cases, where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section(1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received,or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. 
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of the person to comply with the terms of the notice. 
(
3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. 
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. 

170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. -(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. 
8.The import of the said provisions is that normally where an accused has been named in the FIR, and the offence is punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment, the arrest of the accused may not be necessary at the initial stage and his attendance may be secured by issuing a notice to him to appear before the police officer under section 41 A Cr.P.C. In such cases it would be advisable to arrest the accused only after sufficient evidence of his involvement in the crime has been collected and the charge sheet needs to be submitted. Under section 170(1) Cr.P.C. it has been provided that on completion of investigation if sufficient evidence has been collected the accused shall be forwarded in custody to the Magistrate concerned, unless he has been released on bail (if the offence was bailable), in which event security may be taken for his appearance before the Magistrate.
This practice of not arresting the accused straightaway and arresting them only after sufficient evidence has been collected is normally followed by the CBI, and CB (CID) in their investigations. 
9.Where however the accused has not been named in the FIR, or at the time when the co-accused have been picked up, for example in a case of vehicle theft or recovery of other stolen goods, or where the co-accused has been arrested while committing a crime, and he names another accused as also having participated in the crime, whose custodial interrogation may be necessary and the police officer is of the opinion that the disclosure furnishes credible information or gives rise to reasonable suspicion for inferring that this accused whose arrest is sought could also be involved, or there are chances that such an accused would abscond or not respond to a notice under section 41A to appear, looking to the nature of the crime and the background of the particular accused, these maybe appropriate cases where immediate arrests may be needed. Likewise where the accused whose arrest is sought appears to be habitually engaged in committing crimes or appears to be participating in some organized crimes, and there is probability of the accused repeating the offence, these would also be circumstances where it may be necessary to arrest such accused without delay. 
10.However in a case under section 498 A IPC where the wife subject to violence has gone back to her "maika" following the violence, it may not be necessary in a particular case to immediately arrest the husband and other family members who have been made accused in the FIR until adequate evidence has been collected, as she is unlikely to encounter violence when she is away from her "sasural a charge sheet ." In E.C. Act offences again where the licences of a ration card dealer named in the FIR has been suspended, he may not have any opportunity to again indulge in blackmarketing or to commit a new offence under the E.C. Act. Here too arrests can be deferred until sufficient evidence to submit has been collected, when he needs to be produced before the trial court. But where the dealer is trying to obtain affidavits from ration card holders and it appears that he is trying to win over witnesses, then it may be open to the police to arrest him straight away. We have mentioned these examples as illustrations for situations where arrests may or not be immediately needed and they are by no means exhaustive. 
11.
It is with the objective of striking a balance on the need to provide the Constitutional protection from arbitrary arrest guaranteed under Article 21 and the restraint on arrests for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, subject to certain exceptions as provided for under section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and the need of the police to carry out its investigation without interference, that we have refrained from passing blanket orders staying the arrests of the accused in all such cases. 
12.But we do expect the police officer to record reasons in a bona fide and honest manner, why it has become necessary to arrest the accused in a particular case punishable with imprisonment with upto 7 years.
The police officer should not mechanically and routinely write down in the case diary that there is likelihood of the accused running away, or presume that the accused would not respond to the notice to appear under section 41 A Cr.P.C, or that he would tamper with the evidence, unless there are strong reasons with concrete material for taking such a view, and this satisfaction along with the concrete reasons for taking the view need to be spelt out clearly in the case diary before the accused is arrested. 
13.Thus strong reasons are needed for arresting an accused with respectable antecedents, who is an income tax payee with roots in the community, and a permanent abode, no history of earlier abscondance or non-cooperation with the police and who is not likely to tamper with the evidence or to again commit a crime unless he is immediately arrested. 
14.The propriety, honesty and genuiness of the reasons given for arrests in particular cases punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and whether they conform to the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. therefore need to be strictly monitored by the superior officers, i.e. C.O.s/ S.P.s/SSPs or DIGs in the districts, as has been emphasized in the DGP's circular dated 3.10.11. We make it clear that
in the event that this Court finds that the accused who are wanted in cases punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment are being arrested in a routine and mechanical matter, without the existence of the conditions necessary for arresting them as mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. this Court will have no hesitation in summoning the concerned police officers or even the superior police officers and they may even have to face contempt charges. For persistent unwarranted arrests in such matters in violation of the provisions of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A and the DGP's circular dated 3.10.11. we may even recommend disciplinary action against such errant police officers to the DGP, U.P. 
15.Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also requires production of the case diary before the Magistrate before whom the accused is produced for remand. 
16.Section 167(1) reads thus: 
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. ----(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter presecribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. 
17.As rightly pointed out in Bir Bhadra Pratap Singh v D.M., Azamgarh, 1959 Cri.L.J 685 the forwarding of case diary entries under section 167(1) Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality, and the Magistrate is not simply to "rubber stamp" the prayer of the police officer seeking remand of the accused, but he is to apply his judicial mind to satisfy himself that the requirements of law are met when the police produces an accused for remand. At the time of granting the remand we expect the Magistrate to examine the case diary for satisfying himself whether the police officer's reasons for immediate arrest in the cases punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years was held by him in a bona fide manner and whether the reasons for remand are restricted to the pre-conditions for arrest mentioned in the newly introduced sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. The Magistrate needs to closely examine as to how the police officer could reach a conclusion that unless the accused was arrested he would repeat the offence, or why without arrest the investigation could not proceed, or whether the particular accused was as a matter of fact likely to cause the evidence to disappear, or would tamper with the evidence, or the accused would try and influence witnesses, or without arrest the particular accused would not appear in Court. These opinions of the police officer are to be based on concrete material and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the officer. If he finds that no genuine reasons which accord with the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A exist the Magistrate may even refuse to grant remand to the accused, and allow the accused to be released on a personal bond with a direction to appear before the competent court or before the police when called upon to do so, with or without security. 
18.There would be no impediment in the Magistrate remanding the accused to judicial custody at later stages as authorized under section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) and section 170(1) Cr.P.C. when the accused is produced before the Magistrate and the case diary shows that sufficient evidence for submitting a charge sheet has been collected. Needless to mention that in case the accused has already secured bail, then the police officer would be disentitled to arrest an accused person for seeking his remand because the charge sheet is to be submitted. The accused could then be summoned to appear by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence in exercise of powers under section 204 Cr.P.C. 
19.If accused who are required in cases punishable with upto 7 years sentence are not routinely arrested by the police, or are granted bail by the lower court itself, without any undue delay in disposing of their bail applications, and in appropriate cases the facility of releasing the accused on interim bails on personal bonds pending consideration of their regular bails with or without security with a direction to appear when required is also extended to them, as has been laid down in the Apex Court Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437, the Full Bench in Amaravati and another v State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J. 755, and the Division Bench in Sheoraj Singh @ Chuttan v State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 781, considerable time of the High Court could be spent more productively in hearing single judge and two judge appeals, or bails in grave matters. At present we find that most of the High Court single and division benches on the criminal side are engaged in considering an inordinately large number of applications for bail, applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., and Division Bench criminal writ petitions in such matters punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, which could easily be dealt with by the Magistrates and Sessions Courts. 
DIRECTIONS: 
20.We therefore direct the Magistrates that when accused punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment are produced before them remands may be granted to accused only after the Magistrates satisfy themselves that the application for remand by the police officer has been made in a bona fide manner and the reasons for seeking remand mentioned in the case diary are in accordance with the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. and there is concrete material in existence to substantiate the ground mentioned for seeking remand. Even where the accused himself surrenders or where investigation has been completed and the Magistrate needs to take the accused in judicial custody as provided under section 170(1) and section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) Cr.P.C, prolonged imprisonment at this initial stage, when the accused has not been adjudged guilty may not be called for, and the Magistrates and Sessions Courts are to consider the bails expeditiously and not to mechanically refuse the same, especially in short sentence cases punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment unless the allegations are grave and there is any legal impediment in allowing the bail, as laid down in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437, and Sheoraj Singh @ Chuttan v State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 781. The facility of releasing the accused on interim bail pending consideration of their regular bails may also be accorded by the Magistrates and Sessions Judges in appropriate cases. 
21.The Magistrate may also furnish information to the Registrar of the High Court through the District Judge, in case he is satisfied that a particular police officer has been persistently arresting accused in cases punishable with upto 7 year terms, in a mechanical or mala fide and dishonest manner, in contravention of the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A, and thereafter the matter may be placed by the Registrar in this case, so that appropriate directions may be issued to the DGP to take action against such errant police officer for his persistent default or this Court may initiate contempt proceedings against the defaulting police officer. 
22.The District Judges should also be directed to impress upon the remand Magistrates not to routinely grant remands to police officers seeking remand for accused if the pre-conditions for granting the remands mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. are not disclosed in cases punishable with 7 year terms, or where the police officer appears to be seeking remand for an accused in a mala fide manner in the absence of concrete material. The issue of compliance with sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C and the directions of this Court in this regard may also be discussed in the monthly meetings of the District Judges with the administration and the superior police officials. 
23.We are also of the view that the Registrar General may issue a circular within a period of one month with directions to the Sessions Courts and Magistrates to monitor and oversee the applications for remand sought by the arresting police officers and to comply with the other directions mentioned herein above. 
24.The DGP, U.P. is directed to send a status report with better particulars by the next listing as to the extent to which arrests are only being effected in cases punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. We are not satisfied by the mechanical incantation of the words by the police of 72 U.P. districts: "
???? / ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??." 
25.As already indicated above we are of the view that by routinely mentioning in the case diary that a particular condition referred to in sections 41(1)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C. has been met for seeking police remand, would not provide adequate reason for effecting the arrest. The DGP is also directed to circulate the present order to all subordinate police officers. 
26.We are also of the view that the UP Legal Services Authority be directed to bring out pamphlets for distribution in the legal literacy camps etc., or even issue news paper announcement with headings such as "
??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ????
," informing the public that henceforth accused wanted in cases punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment would get relief and not be routinely arrested because of the recent amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been enforced from 1.11.2010. 
27.Let a copy of this order be sent to the DGP, U.P., Member Secretary, U.P. SLSA and District Judges in all districts of U.P. for compliance and communication to all the concerned judicial magistrates before whom the accused are produced for remand by the police officers within ten days. 
28.Let a copy of this order be also furnished to the learned Government Advocate forthwith. 
29.Let a compliance report be submitted by the DGP, U.P., Member Secretary, U.P. SLSA and District Judges by the next listing. The said authorities may also indicate the difficulties if any, faced in complying with the aforesaid directions. 
List on 14.12.2011. 

Dated: 11.10.2011 


                   
                     

                     

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