Allahabad Court October 2012 Judgments
Zaferyab Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1. List has been revised. None present for the revisionist. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No.415 of 2005, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor, by which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The grounds taken in the revision are that the impugned order is unjust, improper and arbitrary. The court below has not considered the weight of evidence. The prosecution has the power to adduce the evidence and the court below has not called the opinion of the expert to examine the C.D. 3. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order. 4. Under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the court may at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings, summon any person as witness or may recall or re-examine any such person if it appears to be essential to just decision of the court. In the present case, it is alleged that Irfan son of Iftakhar ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1. LIST has been revised. None present for the revisionists. 2. THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ballia in S.T. No.105 of 2009 (State Vs. Ajai Gupta and others), by which the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The grounds taken in the revision are that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The trial court has completely mis-read and mis-interpreted the materials on record. The medicines recovered from the possession of the revisionists were found to be of standard quality yet the court below has not considered this fact and no offence under Section 274, 275, 276 I.P.C. is made out. There is no material and evidence on record regarding any offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 411 I.P.C. or Section 18 punishable under section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Merely on the allegation that some of the drugs recovered from the house of t...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and Others Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. However, none appears for the respondents even in the revised list though the names of Sri Mustqeem Ahmad and Sri. P.K. Pandey are shown in the cause list. 3. Since there is a direction from Hon'ble the Apex Court dated 30.7.2012 for disposing off the writ petition itself expeditiously the Court is proceeding to dispose off the writ petition under the Rules of the Court. 4. Brief facts are that the respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager driver in the petitioner establishment from 1.4.1992 and he continuously worked for 240 days in each year but he was disengaged w.e.f. 30.5.1998 without any notice or compensation when he raised a demand for regularization. He approached the Conciliation Officer in 2007 but upon a failure report the State Government referred it as an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 64 of 2007. The petitioners contested th...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
The petitioner's claim for regularization of his service, was rejected by an order dated 04.12.2010, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In the impugned order, it has only been stated that the petitioner was an employee on daily wage basis in the year 1981 and since, he had not worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, his services could not be regularized under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group- D Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2001). In the counter affidavit, the respondents have come out with an additional stand, namely that the petitioner had only worked for a limited period in the year, 1981 and thereafter did not work for the next 17 years. This fact is however, not indicated in the impugned order and therefore, this additional fact can not be taken into consideration. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2001 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present issue and have formulated the said rule, ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1. CASE called out in the revised list. 2. HEARD the learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. The present bail application has been filed for enlarging the accused applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1796 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504, 506, 447, 448 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. LEARNED counsel for the accused applicant has filed a computerized copy of the order of co-accused Kallu Bajpai, Mahendra Tiwari and Sunil Tiwari who have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.7.2012 and 1.8.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14944 and 14945 of 2012. The same be taken on record and be made part of the record. 4. IT is contended on behalf of the accused applicant that co-accused Kallu Bajpai, Mahendra Tiwari and Sunil Tiwari standing on the same footing have already been enlarg...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu Vs. Jageshwar, State of U.P
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1. THE appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court no.1, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 282 of 2002 State Vs. Kallu and another (crime no. 6 of 2002) u/s 302, 307 IPC, and S.T. no. 976 of 2002 State of Kallu u/s 25 Arms Act (crime no. 31/2002) whereby all the three accused- appellants aforesaid, have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302/307 IPC and each appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each u/s 302/34 IPC and 10-years R.I. u/s 307/34 IPC and fine of Rs. 2000/- each with default stipulation. Accused Kallu had been further found guilty u/s 25 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. SUCCINCTLY stated the prosecution story is that on 4.1.2002 at 7.00 p. m. Dragpal Singh s/o Nanhey Singh r/o village Barua Khurd P.S. Kant, District Shahjahanpur sub...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. 1. BOTH the petitions have been filed by employer U.P. Power Corporation. Workman respondent no.3 in the first writ petition is Murari and workman respondent no.3 in the second writ petition is Shanker Lal. Through these writ petitions orders dated 5.8.2006 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. Allahabad in letter no.1069 Murari Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. and letter no.1070 Shanker Lal Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. respectively have been challenged. Both the orders are identical and have been passed under Section 6-H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (U.P.I.D.Act). Both the workmen had claimed an amount of Rs.1106266/- each as unpaid wages under the award dated 14.11.1983. Copy of the award is Annexure I to the writ petition. Against the award dated 14.11.1983 petitioners had filed writ petition in the form of writ petition no.6657 of 1984 in which stay order was granted on 14.5.1984. However, the same was vacated on 20.7.1994. Writ petition was dismissed on 13.7.20...
Tag this Judgment!Harjinder Nagar Inter College Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2012, passed by the D.I.O.S. whereby the no confidence motion passed in the resolution on 30.5.2012 against the petitioners has been accepted, and also the election of Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as the new Manager of the Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The facts briefly stated are that there is the college known as Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District-Kanpur (the College). The college is managed by a Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration and the petitioner no.2 is the manager of the said Committee of Management. Certain allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner no.2 and a notice was given by the President of the Committee, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai respondent no. 5, requesting the petitioner no.2 to call a meeting of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. THE challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate-V, Mathura in case crime no. 240/ix/2009. By the impugned order, the present revisionists along with Smt. Laxmi Singh, wife of revisionist no. 1 has been summoned to face trial for the offence under section 420, 120 B IPC. 2. THE accusation against the accused persons have been brought forward by moving an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by Smt Rani, wife of Laxman. With the facts that her husband is mentally sick and his mental age is hardly that of a kid of 4 or 5 years. He owns plots Nos. 274 and 202 of different areas in village Kurkunda P.S. Farah, District Mathura. Because of his poor mental condition, Laxman was not employed anywhere and he frequently used to visit the company of Tunda and Ramjeet presently revisionist no.4 and 5. Tunda was employed as driver with revisionist no. 1, who also employed Laxman as guard at his house. The complainant came to know that Rame...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India Thru Secy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Irshad Ali and Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned senior counsel for the respondents 2. TO 5 of the Allahabad University. I have heard Sri J.P. Singh for the respondent No.6 and 7. All these respondents have filed their counter affidavits. The respondent No.1 is only a formal party. The respondent No. 8 and 9 are the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police represented by the learned Standing Counsel. This petition has been filed by two petitioners who claim to have been admitted on the rolls of the University and they have also applied for allotment of accommodation in the respondent No.6 Hostel. The petitioners have not been provided any allotment inspite of the fact that they have deposited the requisite fee for the same. The reason explained in the writ petition is that unauthorized occupants, not only in the respondent No.6 hostel, but in almost in all the hostels of the University are occupying rooms as a result whereof gen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »