Court : Allahabad Lucknow
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi. (ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, the learned A.G.A, and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned Amicus Curiae. 1. This appeal styled as "Criminal Appeal" is preferred under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short ''the Act'), assailing the order dated 17.3.2015 in Criminal Appeal no. 19 of 2015 passed by District Judge, Agra, whereby the order of the Adjudicating Officer dated 19.2.2015 imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs stands reduced to 50%, as a pre conditional deposit for admission of the appeal. 2. The core issue which falls for consideration is as to the nature of adjudication proceedings contemplated under Chapter X of the Act i.e, whether such proceedings are civil or criminal in nature as an answer on the said issue would have a bearing on the cognizability of this appeal before this bench on the criminal side of the jurisdiction. 3. The appellant claims to be a petty food vendor engaged in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The issue On 7 November 2012, a Division Bench referred the following question of law for resolution by the Full Bench: "Whether a temporary police constable appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861 (Police Act), who has not been placed on probation, can be terminated from service in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (Police Regulation) or whether the procedure provided under Para 541 of the Police Regulations dealing with the constables on probation shall be applicable" The issue before the Full Bench, turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Police Act and of the Police Regulations. The issue is whether a person, who has been appointed as a police constable on a temporary basis, is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations. The constables who are before this Court, contend that the services of a person who is appointed on a temporary basis, can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri B. N. Singh for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri L. K. Dwivedi who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. The fifth respondent was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh from the Mirzapur Sadar-396 seat. The fifth respondent was tried for offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code arising out of Case Crime no. 929 of 1995 of Police Station Kotwali Katara, District Mirzapur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by a judgement and order dated 28 February, 2015 convicted the fifth respondent for offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment of three years and to a fine. The writ petition, which has been filed as a petition in the public interest, seeks a declaration that the fifth respondent stands disqualified as a member of the Legislative Assembly. A mandamus is soug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
The appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12 February 2015 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant for challenging the validity of an order dated 17 August 2007 terminating his services as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary1 on the ground of suppression of material facts. A criminal case was registered against the appellant in 2004 under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code2 at Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj. The criminal case was registered as Case Crime No.136 of 2004 and a charge sheet was submitted on 10 August 2004. An advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Constables to the PAC on 2 May 2006. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied for selection. In the affidavit, which the appellant filed in support of his application, he stated that there was no criminal case pending against him; there was no criminal case against him in the past (Item no.3) and that no criminal case was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This criminal misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with a prayer for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 19.1.2012 passed by the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Bareilly in complaint case no.4791 of 2011 (M/s Brijraj Associates Vs. Om Prakash Singh) u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act , P.S. Subhash Nagar, district Bareilly. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the cheque in question dated 5.12.2010 for an amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- was dishonored by the S.B.I, Branch Sahupuri, Varanasi with an endorsement that the signature of the drawer of the cheque do not match with the signatures available with the bank and the signature of the drawer is incomplete on the cheque. Such endorsement of the Bank does not constitute the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act in view of the language used therein. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Ajai Lamba, J. 1. I had the privilege of going through the judgment prepared by Hon'ble Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Hon'ble Justice A.P.Sahi. 2. I fully agree with the answers given by my brother Justice A.P.Sahi to issues (A),(B),(C),(D),(E),(G) and (H), as encased in the judgment. 3. With all humility, however, I differ on the answer recorded in context of Issue (F). I would like to record my separate reasons and findings on the issue. 4. For ready reference, Issue (F) reads as under: "The status of final judgment unsigned by one of the Judges of the Bench and the conflict of opinion and its reference by Hon'ble the Chief Justice." 5. The issue has been framed in context of Questions 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18, as they are related. Before making an endeavour to address the issue, the sequence of events is required to be reiterated in brief. 6. The relevant facts to be noted in this context are that the Bench constituted of Hon'ble Justice Amar Saran and Hon'ble Justice Shri Narayan S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. and Om Prakash-VII, J. 1.Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 : "This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the further proceeding of criminal case no. 53 of 2014 pending before Special Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as further proceeding in pursuance of the summoning order dated 29.10.2014 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. It appears that respondent no. 2 Manoj Kumar Jain had issued a cheque no. 409405 ACB/SV No. 1409405 on 14.3.2013 in favour of the applicant for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs in connection with the business transaction being done between them. The cheque was issued from the account maintained in the Amanath Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore. The said cheque was presented for encashment before the UCO Bank at Firozabad. The aforesaid cheque was returned back unpaid and the applicant's bank i.e. UCO Bank sent an intim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The reference to the Full Bench The reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned upon two orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court. By the first of those orders, the following question was referred for consideration: "Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397." Subsequently, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while noticing the above reference, referred two additional questions for consideration by a larger Bench: "(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397; and (2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a...
Tag this Judgment!