Allahabad Court June 1998 Judgments
Umakant Sharma, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC410; (1998)3UPLBEC1805
S.K. Phaujdar, J.1. on his own behalf and on behalf of Binod Kumar Roy, J.--The above mentioned 11 writ petitions relate to the selection of candidates for recruitment in the U. P. Higher Judicial Service (for short called as 'H.J.S.'). The different petitioners made different prayers in their writ petitions and the prayers cover issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to fill up all existing vacancies in the quota of direct recruit, for a declaration that certain amendments in the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules (for short called as the 'Rules') were ultra vires and for quashing a resolution of the Full Court of the Allahabad High Court as regards appointment of direct recruits and promotion of persons belonging to the U. P. Nayik Sewa (for short called as the 'Nayik Sewa'). In some cases, prayers were made to command the respondents to carve out a fresh select list in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Garg and others v. State of U. P., AIR 1991 SC ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC357; (1999)1UPLBEC454
S.R. Singh, J.1. Petitioners of the first two writ petitions, who wereenlisted as daily-rated employees in the Public Works Department and the Minor Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P. respectively, have invoked the procedure of this Court for the (win reliefs of mandamus to the respondents to regularise their services in their respective posts and to pay equal salary to them as admissible to the regular employees of the department performing similar duties.2. The facts wrapped inbrevity, are that the petitioners ofWrit Petition No. 13197 of 1996 wereallegedly appointed as class IVemployees on daily wages on differentdates between 1985 and 1989. Thepetitioners of Writ Petition No. 13246of 1996 too entered the service ashelpers allegedly on daily wages ondifferent dates between 1982 and1992. The third Writ Petition No.14281 of 1998 instituted by JalVigyan Anusandhan KaramchariUnion. Bahadurabad and five others,seeks the relief of mandamuscommanding the respondents toregular...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4219
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. Revisionist Bhagwan Das son of Sri Suraj Bali Prasad was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment and order dated 21 -9-82 and was awarded sentence of 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1982 preferred by the revisionist was dismissed by the appellate Court by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh vide judgment and order dated 24th January, 1984.2. Judgments and order of both the Courts below have been challenged in this revision mainly on the ground that sanction under Section 20(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act was granted by the Competent authority on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst and after a copy of it alongwith the notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon the revisionist he got the sample analysed by Director Central Food Laboratory. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Tiwari and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1037
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard applicants' counsel for the learned A.G.A.It appears that the first information report lodged by respondent No. 3 was investigated and police submitted final report. On a protest petition being presented by respondent No. 3, the learned Magistrate went through the case diary and took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the applicants as accused persons.2. This order of summoning was challenged by the applicants in criminal revision No. 80 of 1995 which was dismissed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, by the order dated 6-7-1996. On the basis of some observations made in the case of Kailash Choudhary v. State of U.P. 1994 All LJ 174 : 1994 Cri LJ 67 it appears that the applicants filed objections before the learned Magistrate concerned challenging the summoning order. By the impugned order dated 4-5-1998 the said objections have been rejected by the District and Sessions Judge and he has held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)AWC1960
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A.2. This is an application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. for quashing the warrants issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, to the Superintendent of Jail, Aligarh. directing him to produce the applicants before him in Case Crime No. 497 of 1997 under Section 395/397. I.P.C.. police station Sarai Inayat. district Allahabad.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that such warrants could not be issued under the provisions of Section 267. Cr. P.C., during the investigation, as the provisions are confined to the production of an accused in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel also invited the attention of the Court to Form No. 36 of Schedule II of the Cr. P.C.4. Warrants for the production of a person, who is confined/detained in prison issued under Section 267, Cr. P.C, are commonly known as 'B' warrants.5. The provisions of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Vs. Janak Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4248
ORDERJ.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in revision.2. This revision is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by lower appellate Court. It is well settled law that in a revision filed against the order of acquittal, power could be exercised only in exceptional cases like :(i) that the trial Court having no jurisdiction has acquitted the accused;(ii) that the Court has wrongly shut-out the evidence of prosecution;(iii) that the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence admitted by trial Court as inadmissible;(iv) that material evidence has been totally overlooked;(v) that the acquittal is based on compounding of offence, invalid under law.3. In this connection a reference may be had to the cases of Punjab and Sind Bank v. G.S.S. Bedi 1995 UP (Crl) Report 168 and Chenna Swamy v. State of A.P. AIR 1962 SC 1788.4. In the present case a perusal of the order of lower appellate Court would indicate that the learned Judge has given cogent and valid reasons ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›