CRLA/1557 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1224
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302/34 & 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 & 65-B - Principles governing conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence reiterated - The circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established - that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused - should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence - Chain of circumstances incomplete, conviction cannot be sustained - Circumstantial evidence must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than that of guilt of the accused - Each link unless connected together form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused. (Para 44, 46 to 49, 68 to 72) (B) Criminal Law - Admissibility of Electronic Records - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - A certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record - oral evidence in place of certificate cannot suffice - C.C.T.V. footage cannot be admitted in evidence unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B - Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if led in the manner stated and not otherwise - To hold otherwise would render Section 65-B(4) otiose. (Para 40 to 42, 49, 71) Accused appellants were alleged to have kidnapped and murdered a child (aged 5 years) - FIR initially lodged against unknown persons under Section 364 IPC - based on missing complaint - names of accused surfaced subsequently through supplementary application - Recovery of dead body alleged on the basis of accused's disclosure - prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen and CCTV footage - without required certification and without examining relevant witnesses - Trial court convicted the appellants using circumstantial evidence. (Para 2-16, 39, 43) HELD: - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the offence. Links in the chain of circumstances conspicuously missing. Investigation in the present matter is not up-to-the mark. No credible, legal, admissible, or reliable evidence on record to inculpate the appellants. Conviction set aside. Accused-appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Para 71, 72, 74, 75) Appeals allowed. (E-7)
Title: Naushad Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Samit Gopal
English hearing
CRLA/370 /1991 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1203
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Murder and Rape based on Circumstantial Evidence - Admissibility of extra-judicial confession and recovery without proper disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 376 & 201 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapon and extra-judicial confession must be proven strictly through admissible and cogent evidence - Extra-judicial confession alone cannot justify conviction in absence of corroboration - Recovery without proper disclosure statement fails the test of Section 27 and cannot alone form basis of conviction - Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases - Conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the evidence presented consists of doubtful recoveries and unreliable extra-judicial confessions.(Para - 60,61,75) Two minor girls went missing on 17.05.1987 - their decomposed bodies were recovered on 21.05.1987 - appellants arrested thereafter and allegedly confessed and led to recovery of weapons and belongings of deceased - accused allegedly confessed before villagers and led to recovery of 'daratis' and an earring - conviction based on extra-judicial confession and recoveries - Medical opinion could not ascertain cause of death; no direct evidence or eyewitnesses. (Para - 3 to 13, 41 to 42) HELD: - Conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and inadmissible recoveries. Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. (Para - 41, 50 to 52, 54 to 60,78) Appeal allowed. (E-7)
Title: Taley Hasan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain
English hearing
CRLP/12507 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1186
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 50, 167 & 304 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 384, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 - Sections 7 & 12 - Writ Petition - assailing the arrest and to declare illegal all the successive remand orders - ECIR - FIR - lodged by ACB - earlier petitioner was arrested along with other co-accused in Chhattisgarh by ACB for offenses under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which he was granted bail - however, on same day after his release, he was re-arrested by the UP Police at Raipur, within 20 minutes after his bail release - Transit remand - the Special Judge, Meerut remanded him to judicial custody, despite his objections citing violations of Articles 19(1), 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of Cr.P.C. - His arrest memo and intimation to his son were duly made on the same day - Court finds that, - the arrest memo lacked a column for stating reasons, and the petitioner was not informed of his right to legal aid, which is protected under Articles 21, 22(1), 39A of the Constitution and Section 304 Cr.P.C. - held, Right to access legal aid is a valuable right of an accused and he must be informed of that right before his arrest - therefore, due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as the grounds of arrest were never communicated in writing, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to defend his custodial remand, the arrest and all subsequent remand orders were quashed - however, the charge-sheet remains unaffected and proceedings may continue as per law - direction issued, for circulation of the judgment by the Director General of Police to all police personnel in U.P. to prevent future procedural lapses. (Para - 16, 17, 18, 19) Writ petition stands allowed. (E-11) Result: - Writ Petition - Allowed.
Title: Anwar Dhebar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Madan Pal Singh
English hearing
ARPLD/9 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1165
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 34(3), 37 & 43 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 13, 13(1A) & 29(2) - Limitation Act,1963 - Sections 5 & 12 - Article 116, 117 - Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act r/w Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - challenging the judgment passed by the Commercial Court - Arbitration Case - Arbitral Award - Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the Arbitral Award - dismissed on the ground of limitation - current appeal - Practice and Procedure - the Court observed that - before considering the delay condonation application, strongly deprecated the growing practice of impleading Civil Courts, Tribunals, or Arbitrators as party-respondents in appeals or writs challenging their judicial orders - such adjudicating bodies, acting in a judicial capacity, are immune from personal prosecution unless specific and serious allegations of misconduct are made - held - neither the Commercial Court nor the Arbitrator in the present case had any personal stake or allegations against them, and thus directed their removal from the memo of parties - to uphold judicial independence and procedural propriety, the Court issued a binding practice direction - litigants must not implead Courts, Tribunals, or Arbitrators in appeals under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless there are substantiated claims of misfeasance or misconduct. (Para - 4, 8, 9) (B) Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 34(3), 37 & 43 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 13, 13(1A) & 29(2) - Limitation Act,1963 - Sections 5 & 12 - Article 116, 117 - Appeal u/s Section 37 of the Arbitration r/w Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act - challenge to the impugned Commercial Court's order of dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act - Contract - disputes arose over unpaid bills and compensation - Arbitration proceedings - Arbitral Award - Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the Arbitral Award - dismissed on the ground of limitation - present appeal - law of Limitation - court finds that, appeal was initially filed beyond the statutory 60-day period prescribed u/s 13(1A), delayed by 77 days and subsequently, refiled with a total delay of 93 days - appellant sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act citing administrative approvals, legal consultations, and document collation - Court held such reasons insufficient, attributing the delay to bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of diligence - reiterated that the scope of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 is not elastic enough to accommodate prolonged delays in commercial litigation, especially in light of the legislative mandate for expeditious resolution - consequently, delay condonation application rejected and the Appeal is dismissed as time- barred. (Para - 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) Application Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: The Project Director, Uphsdp, Lko. & Ors. Vs. Commercial Court No. 1 Lko. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
A227/612 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1115
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 21 & 23 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Rules 14, 15, 16, 21 & 23 - Order of eviction of children, relatives, or others from senior citizen's or parent's property by Maintenance Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal - Power of - Validity - Maintenance Tribunal which is manned by officer not below rank of Sub Divisional Officer or Appellate Tribunal which is manned by officer not below rank of District Magistrate, cannot act beyond powers given in Chapter II of 2007 Act - Since neither Act, 2007 nor Rules, 2014 expressly give them eviction powers, they cannot assume such powers or use inherent powers like civil courts have under Section 151 CPC - Thus, while deciding application before it in terms of Section 5 of Act, 2007, they cannot pass eviction orders under Sections 7, 8 or 9 of Act, 2007 - Considering overall scheme of Act, Section 21, 23 and Supreme Court ruling in Urmila Dixit (infra), Maintenance Tribunal / Appellate Tribunal can, after declaring a transfer void, pass consequential orders for possession in favour of senior citizen, including evicting an undesirable person from senior citizen's property - Matter referred to concerned Court for decision on merits. (Para 2, 98, 99, 137) Petition pending. (E-13)
Title: Onkar Nath Gaur & Anr. Vs. D.M./President Appellate Tribunal Lko. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Attau Rahman Masoodi,Jaspreet Singh,Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
WRIC/2373 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1094
HEADNOTE hearing
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 4, 16, 17, 17A, 17B, 25(3) - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Rule 85(3) - Functus Officio and Review Jurisdiction - Petitioner challenged the order dated 04.10.2023, which allowed a review application and suspended the appellate order dated 11.08.2023, reviving petitioner's drug license (Form 25 and Form 28) except for drugs using Propylene Glycol, due to substandard DOK-1 Max Syrup linked to child deaths in Uzbekistan. Petitioner argued the Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to review its order absent statutory provisions, became functus officio post-appeal, and passed the review order ex parte, violating Section 25(3) of the Act. Respondents contended the review was justified due to public interest, substandard drugs containing excess Diethylene Glycol (DEG) and Ethylene Glycol (EG), and misrepresentation of Uzbekistan court orders, citing inherent powers to correct fraud, per Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres. The court held that the Appellate Authority, having decided the appeal, became functus officio under Rule 85(3), and no statutory review power existed under the Act or Rules. No fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation was established, as all facts, including Uzbekistan court orders and drug deficiencies, were known during the appeal, per Naresh Kumar vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyuman Singhji. The review order, passed ex parte on the same day as the application, lacked new evidence or legal basis. Writ petition allowed, review order quashed. (Paras 15-33) Writ petition allowed.
Title: Ms Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Dinesh Pathak
English hearing
WRIA/1000115/2014 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1085
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Tenancy Law - UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent &Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 30 (1) - Scope of power - Deposit of rent - No adjudication on relationship of landlord and tenant, how far vitiate the impugned order - Held, S. 30 itself does not confer any adjudictory powers upon the Munsif for deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant, otherwise the use of word 'claiming to be tenant' would be of no purpose - No power of adjudication have been granted to the Munsif by virtue of S. 30 of the Act and even if the deposit is made by a person claiming himself to be a tenant, and is actually not a tenant, the benefit of deposit u/s 30 would clearly not be available to him in suitable proceedings initiated by the landlord and contested by the tenant/ person in occupation and not a tenant. (Para 11 and 13) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Puran Singh Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia
English hearing
SPLA/228 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1063
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ - Principle of res judicata - Applicability - Benefit of conversion from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme claimed - Entitlement - Issue of entitlement was decided in V. P. Singh's case between the parties - Effect - Change made in the law, how far can upset the binding nature of decision - Held, an adjudication, inter-se between the parties, in respect of a cause once attaches finality, the same cannot be revived - A previous adjudication inter-se between the parties in respect of the same lis remains operative and even an erroneous judgment operates as res judicata, inter-se, between the parties and that a subsequent change in law would not invalidate such previous adjudication - The appellants would not be entitled to any relief even though the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Kiran supports their claim. (Para 38, 48 and 50) B. Service Law - Central University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967 - Pension Scheme - Entitlement - Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 - It's applicability to the appellant, appointed on 9.7.1990 and not in employment of BHU on 1.1.1986 - Objection was made against inclusion in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme - Effect - Held, by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987, all those, who came in employment after 1.1.1986, were covered under the Pension Scheme. For such employees, there was no option available to be included in the CPF Scheme. (Para 54 and 57) Special Appeal no. 309 of 2025 allowed and rest Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
WRIA/27328 /2018 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1080
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools - Equivalence of Qualification - IAF Education Certificate vis-ра-vis Intermediate - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 - Whether I.A.F. Education Test certificate is equivalent to Intermediate examination for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools. Held : IAF Education Certificate is equivalent to Intermediate, in view of Circular dated 28.4.1992 issued by Secretary, State of U.P.; Circular issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 23.8.2017, and judgment of Ram Lal Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. And Others, Neutral Citation No. 2019: AHC:205812 (Para 18) (E-5)
Title: Banna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
A482/22859 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1049
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 451, 457, 458 & 459 - United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 60, 63, 72 & 73 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 - Sections 22,2 & 158 - U.P. Motor Taxation Rules, 1998 - Rule 9(a), 19-A, - UP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rules 203, 203-A - UP Police Act. - Section 23 & 29 - U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, 1945 - Section - 5-A(7) - U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2021 - Rule 72(6)- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - FIR - registered on a complaint of an Excise Inspector - raid & seizure - of illicit liquor, cash, and a vehicle under the U.P. Excise Act - owner of vehicle moved an application for release - rejected, due to the pending trial - Revision Petition - rejected - hence present application - court finds that, this incident highlights a broader systemic issue in U.P., where over 1,13,000 vehicles remain impounded due to inconsistent judicial practices, lack of centralized tracking, and bureaucratic delays - These inefficiencies not only burden courts and departments but also risk criminal misuse and economic loss - To address this, the Court initiated a comprehensive reform process, directing the formation of a high-level Coordination Committee to develop structured guidelines for timely disposal of seized vehicles - Recommendations include creating a centralized digital dashboard linked with CCTNS, establishing district-level vehicle yards with QR tracking, prioritizing auctions of unclaimed vehicles, and enforcing accountability among officials - The Court emphasized that vehicles, as national assets, must not be allowed to deteriorate due to procedural inertia and called for a pragmatic, development-oriented judicial approach that balances statutory compliance with economic utility and property rights - application disposed of with direction to the Registrar (Compliance) to transmit this to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of UP for its effective compliance within a period of Six months. (Para 28, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) Application Disposed of. (E-11)
Title: Birender Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
A482/20422 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1039
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 107, 108, 109, 110 & 482 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2- B(1), 3, 12 & 14 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention), Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(3)(a), 8(3), 10(1), 16(1), 16(2), 17(2), 20, 20(3), 20(4), 22(2), 26(1), 36 & 64 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 94, 126, 127, 128, 129 & 193- Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - challenging the entire proceedings under the Gangsters Act - initiated solely on the basis of a single 'FIR' - alleging illegal mining and transportation using fake documents, which purportedly caused public fear and revenue loss - applicants claimed false implication and highlighted their impoverished status, prompting the Court to scrutinize procedural lapses, including mechanical approval of the gang chart without proper verification - The Court directed the SP to submit all materials justifying the Act's invocation and ordered a financial inquiry by the SDM, which revealed minimal assets and bank activity among the accused - Dissatisfied with the rationale provided by the approving officers, the Court mandated their virtual appearance and emphasized the need for training and compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) of the 2021 Rules - A re-investigation was ordered, and departmental action was recommended against negligent officers, leading to the exoneration of all accused and filing of a closure report - To prevent future misuse, the Court further directed consolidation of conflicting checklists from the Home Department and Directorate of Prosecution, mandated pre-submission review of charge sheets by prosecution officers, empowered courts to report non-compliance - accordingly, application is disposed of with directions to circulate a fresh circular and compliance report to ensure uniform implementation across U.P. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) Application Disposed of. (E-11)
Title: Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
A482/5057 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1017
HEADNOTE hearing
No allegation against the applicant that he had generated or acquired any proceeds of crime- only allegation is that he has assisted in generation of money -it is only when money is generated as a result of such acts that PMLA steps in as soon as proceeds of crime-prima facie no offence made out. Application allowed. (E-9)
Title: Vishnu Prabhakar Vs. Union of India
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
A482/3979 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1008
HEADNOTE hearing
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002-Section 3 -Offence of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA is independent of the scheduled offence through which the proceeds of crime were generated-if numerous persons are accused of commission of the scheduled offence and one or some of them, but not all of them are exonerated / discharged or acquitted- it cannot be said that the scheduled offence has not been committed- or that the proceeds of crime have not been generated-if prosecution is going then even if a person is not named as an accused in the scheduled offence- or if he / she has been exonerated / discharged in respect of the scheduled offence-it will not create a bar against his / her prosecution under the PMLA. Application dismissed. (E-9)
Title: Neeharika Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lko.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
A482/3726 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1000
HEADNOTE hearing
Applicant is an accused in an FIR lodged by CBI- not based on any private complaint-Applicant is seeking permission to travel abroad for attending the wedding ceremony of a relative in USA and to enjoy a family pleasure trip in France-. This purpose is not an essential purpose like revalidation of a Green Card. proceedings against the applicant have been initiated by an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial Court has charged him for commission of offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial pending since 2011 has now reached the stage of defence evidence. At this stage, he wants to travel abroad merely to attend the wedding ceremony of a grand-son of his father's sister, who is not his immediate family member. After attending the wedding at San Diego, California, USA, the applicant wants to have a family pleasure trip to France. 18. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail can be granted permission to travel abroad for some pressing necessity like medical Page 9 of 11 treatment, attending essential official duties and the like. An accused person who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel to another country merely for attending the marriage of a relative and having a pleasure trip to another country. Wedding of a relative in a foreign country and pleasure trip to another country are not at all essential purposes for an under-trial accused person's visit abroad. 19. Merely, because the trial Court had earlier granted permission to the applicant to travel abroad for non-essential objects on numerous, he does not get a right to travel abroad for non- essential objects this time also, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. 20. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this reason has not been assigned by the trial Court and the trial Court has merely rejected the application on the ground that since the trial has reached at the stage of defence evidence, the applicant cannot be granted permission for travel abroad. 21. While exercising the inherent powers of this Court recognized by Section 528 BNSS, this Court's power is not confined to scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the trial court. Besides seeking quashing of the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant has requested this Court to pass an order granting him permission to travel abroad and in these circumstances, this Court can certainly to look into the justification of the prayer made by the applicant so as to assess whether the permission sought can be granted to the applicant. the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application seeking permission for the applicant for his travel to the USA for attending the marriage of a relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip, when the trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. The applicant does not have the right to travel to USA for attending the marriage of his relative and to France to enjoy a family pleasure trip when the trial of the case filed by CBI, in which the applicant is an accused, has reached the stage of defence evidence. The application seeking permission for the applicant's travel abroad as well as the application under Section 528 BNSS lack merits and are, accordingly, rejected. (E-9)
Title: Aditya Murti Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
SAPL/167 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 986
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1860 - Sections 63, 68, 69, 70 & 71 - Second Appeal - preferred by the plaintiff-appellants - assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court - Will - which was executed by the father, excluding one son among his other four sons - property dispute - Original Suit - for cancellation of a Will - Trial Court - upon framing six issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the defendants failed to establish lawful and voluntary execution of the Will - accordingly, the suit was decreed - First Appeal - the appellate court - allowed the appeal - relying primarily on the fact of registration and selective witness testimony - while disregarding the trial court's detailed findings - Second Appeal - Court finds that - proof of Will stands on a higher degree than any other instrument - if there are any suspicious circumstances, whether raised by the other side or otherwise before the court are required to be clarified or removed by the propounder of the Will also, failing which the Will in dispute cannot be said to be valid - the eldest son had specifically alleged that the Will was procured by fraud, at a time when the testator was mentally and physically incapacitated - the trial court had duly considered these aspects and recorded cogent findings - the appellate court, however, failed to consider it and overlooked the finding of the trial court - Held - the first appellate court has allowed the appeal recording illegal and perverse findings - Consequently, the decree passed by the first appellate court is set aside - the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored - no illegality or perversity found in the trial court's findings - Accordingly, the second appeal stands allowed. (Para - 26, 34, 35) Appeal Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Ambika Prasad @ Ambika Prasad Pandey & Ors. Vs. Shyam Bihari & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
BAIL/3971 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 08-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 973
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109(1), 324(4), 351(3), 103(1) & 61(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 180, 192 & 230 - Preliminary objection raised against maintainability of bail application, as extracts from case diary, despite investigation being incomplete, have been annexed - This suggests applicant may influenced investigation and Investigation Officer may try to protect accused - Annexing extracts of case diary become common practice and not annexing is exception - When photo copies are freely provided to persons doing Pairvi of cases, copies of extracts of case diary having been annexed in bail application would not make ground for rejection of bail application without examining merits by Court - Objection rejected - F.I.R lodged 37 hours after incident - Old enmity between parties - Registration number of Bolero vehicle which hit motorcycle remains unidentified despite examination of footage of numerous CCTV cameras and applicant not linked to it - Call records and photo from High Court photo affidavit centre shows his presence in premises of High Court which is 175 km away from place of incident - Co- accused already granted bail - Applicant entitled to be released on bail. (Para 4, 21, 23, 44) Application allowed. (E-13)
Title: Vipin Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
WRIC/22491/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 949
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Family Law - Marriage Registration - Fraudulent Certificates - The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 - Hindu Marriage Registration Rules ,1973 - Large- scale misuse of Arya Samaj marriage certificates for filing couple-protection writs - Police verification revealing forged Aadhar, PAN, educational certificates, fabricated witnesses, and underage marriages - Pattern of registering marriages in Ghaziabad/Gautam Buddha Nagar without residence nexus - Involvement/Negligence of local police and Registrar offices - Court orders institutional reforms, amendment to 2017 Rules, and interim guidelines for marriage registration - Directions for inter- departmental verification mechanism. (Para 5, 7 to 35) Petitioners, claiming to have married against family wishes - sought police protection - State disputed genuineness of Arya Samaj marriage certificate - verification revealed systemic misuse of forged certificates in similar petitions - involving underage parties and non-existent societies - prompting Court to issue state-wide remedial directions. (Para 3 to 7, 12 to14) HELD: - Article 21 guarantees right to choose life partner upon attaining majority, but such right cannot be invoked through forged or fabricated documents to circumvent statutory provisions. State bound to ensure statutory compliance, safeguard sanctity of marriage, and prevent misuse of protection writs, directed amendment of U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within six months and issued binding interim guidelines for marriage registration. Petitions disposed with liberty to seek relief from concerned SSP after verification. (Para 13, 30 to 38) Petitions disposed of. (E-7)
Title: Shani Dev & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
WRIC/13636/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 944
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Law - Maintainability of a writ petition in the presence of an arbitration clause - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 7, 9, 17 & 23 - writ petition is not maintainable where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists, as arbitration is an important Alternative Disputes Redressal process - court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain a matter when the parties have a valid arbitration clause, as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code that provides sufficient remedies, including interim protection. (Para -12,15,16) Petitioner's LPG distributorship dispute - challenged two orders passed by the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation - respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a binding arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. (Para -1 to 5 ) HELD: Writ petition not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause as provided under Clause 37(a) of the agreement and the availability of efficacious remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the arbitrator under Section 23. No observation in the judgment should be construed as adjudication on merits and that if the petitioner approached the arbitrator, the matter should be decided expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. (Para - 17 to 19) Petition dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Surajpur Indane Gas Sewa, Agarwal Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.) & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Prakash Padia
English hearing
WRIC/12032 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 940
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-Fraud upon the court- impersonation and misuse of Aadhaar Card-A writ petition is filed claiming that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were legally wedded and facing threats and they sought police protection-On hearing date, the Petitioner no.1 appeared in person with her brother and denied filing the petition alleging impersonation and misuse of her Aadhaar card-She affirmed that she is married to one Samrat Pandey has two children and currently lives with her parents due to matrimonial discord-A show-cause notice was issued to Advocate Lallan Chaubey, named as the counsel for petitioners, who denied involvement claiming forgery of his signature-A preliminary inquiry was ordered through the Registrar General and it confirmed the petition was filed fraudulently-Both the petitioners denied having filed the petition-There is prima facie case of fraud committed to mislead the court-Directions issued to commissioner of police to conduct inquiry, use scientific and forensic methods to trace the fraud.(Para 1 to 19) The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Rani Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
WRIC/3389 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 19-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 932
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226, 14, 21 & 32-Allahabad High Court Rules 1952-Ch. IV- Rule 3-Notaries Act, 1952-Section 8(1)(e)-The court addressed two critical issues impacting access to justice-the validity of affidavits sworn before Notary Publics and the unlawful imposition of charges for photo identification by Bar Associations-The court held that affidavits attested by Notary Publics under the Notaries Act are valid and must be accepted by the court registry without objections-the court also declared the practice of charging Rs. 500 for photo identification in excess of the officially sanctioned Rs. 125 as illegal, unsanctioned and violative of constitutional principles ensuring access to justice-Any extra collection will attract contempt proceedings-direction issued. (Para 1 to 39) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
Title: M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia
English hearing
WRIC/1775 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 923
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950- Article 226, 21 & 19(1)(d)-Passport Act,1967-Sections 6(2)(f) & 22-The petitioner a practicing advocate applied for a passport -his application was denied due to the pendency of two criminal cases, following Umapati ruling-legal issue arise whether under trial is required to obtain permission or a No Objection Certificate from the concerned criminal court for issuance or renewal of the passport under the act,1967-Held, The court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,1967 bars issuance of passport where criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant-However, this restriction is not absolute due to the Central Government's power under section 22 of the Act-As per GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, under trials may be exempted from this restriction if they produce orders from the concerned court permitting them to depart from India- not merely an NOC-exemption notification has statutory force and courts cannot disregard its requirement by observing that no permission is needed-The court set aside the earlier order of the trial court that held such permission unnecessary and directed the petitioner to seek fresh permission.(Para 1 to 29) B. Doctrine of Per Incuriam: If a judgment ignores binding precedents or statutory provisions, it is rendered per incuriam and does not have binding value. The court held that the Umapati decision fell into this category. (E-6)
Title: Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
WRIA/2000885/2005 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 913
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Enquiry vitiated for non-supply of documents, non-holding of oral enquiry, and ignoring reply of delinquent - Punishment of dismissal at fag end of retirement - Disproportionate. Held: Departmental enquiry must be conducted strictly in accordance with prescribed procedure under Regulation 27 of the 1966 Regulations. Non-supply of relied upon documents, non- fixing of date for oral enquiry, and failure to allow cross-examination vitiates proceedings. Where enquiry officer exonerated the delinquent from 6 of 8 charges, yet disciplinary authority imposed major penalty of dismissal without dealing with explanation to the two partially proved charges, the punishment order is illegal and disproportionate. Since the employee died during pendency of writ petition, no purpose would be served by remand. Dismissal order quashed. Widow of petitioner entitled to all service and retiral benefits with 8% interest, rising to 12% penal interest in case of default. Writ Petition Allowed.
Title: Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
English hearing
WRIA/17029/2013 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 906
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Pension/Family Pension - Petitioner's husband appointed as untrained teacher on 19.11.1963, retired on 30.06.1991. Petitioner's husband was denied pension on ground of not completing 15 years of service as on cut-off date 25.07.1973 under G.O. dated 30.05.1973. Held : High Court held that subsequent G.O. dated 04.12.1982 reducing requirement to 10 years of regular service up to 30.06.1978 squarely applied, as petitioner's husband had rendered more than 14 years of service by then; rejection of claim by relying only on earlier G.O. was illegal. Once order dated 05.03.2008 rejecting pension was set aside, legal consequence would follow. However, since employee died in 2011 and petitioner (widow, aged about 85 years) has been litigating for decades, Court directed State to pay her a lump-sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- in lieu of family pension. Order passed in peculiar circumstances and not to be treated as precedent. (Paras 20-28). Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Smt. Maya Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/3505/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 896
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 7(3-A) & 8 - Gratuity - Interest on delayed payment - Entitlement - Nature of Gratuity explained - Held, pension and gratuity are not mercy or courtesy shown by the Government, after the retirement of the employee, rather it is valuable right and therefore, if there is any delay in settlement and disbursement of the same, the same would visit the penalty of payment of interest - The interest on such delayed payment of gratuity is neither penal nor compensatory in nature and further it is a necessary corollary to the retention of money by other person. (Para 18 and 19) B. Practice and Procedure - Modification Application - Maintainability Writ petition was finally decided - However, the interest on delayed payment was claimed by way of modification application - How far substantive prayer can be granted on modification application - Held, for reviving the proceedings in a finally decided writ petition, no Miscellaneous Application would be maintainable - The prayer for payment of interest on the gratuity amount in all senses, are the substantial prayer - This Court after passing the order has become functus officio and does not retain the jurisdiction to entertain an application for substantially decided issues - High Court rejected the modification application leaving it open to avail the remedy of filing the review petition. (Para 24, 29, 30, 32 and 33) Modification Application rejected. (E-1)
Title: Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh
English hearing
FAPL/49/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 887
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI, VIII, Rule 6 A, 17, 151, - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 504 & 506 - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227- First Appeal - filed by the appellant wife - challenges the Family Court's order - allowing the respondent's amendment application - appellant's marriage was solemnized in year 2011 - matrimonial dispute - under pressure of demand of dowry & other compelling circumstances, she left the house of her husband - criminal proceedings initiated against husband lodged by wife - Suit for divorce u/section 13 of HM Act, filed by wife - respondent husband started delaying tactics, by filing various types of Applications - however, family court rejected respectively - petition under Article 227 filed by wife for expedite disposal of suit before High Court - disposed of with direction to decide the suit within a period four months - respondent husband again filed Misc. Applications in suit - Rejected - First Appeal - - Dismissed - husband did not stop there - Husband filed Amendment Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC - seeking amendment in the pleadings as well as in the prayer clause, seeking restitution of conjugal rights - objection - allowed - present Appeal - court finds that, the amendment application was filed after ten years and just before the final hearing as well as after opportunity for leading evidence was closed just to delaying the proceedings - Despite prior rejections of multiple witness-summoning applications and the High Court directive to conclude the case within four months, the Family Court allowed the amendment without proper judicial scrutiny - held, in the light of cited case of ' Nitaben Dinesh Patel Vs Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel' the impugned order passed on the amendment application cannot be sustainable and the same is liable to be set- aside - consequently, the appeal is allowed - the Family Court is directed to decide the matter within two months on a day-to-day basis, without unnecessary adjournments. (Para - 13,15, 16,17, 19) Appeal Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Meenu Rajvanshi Vs. Brijesh
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Chaudhary,Brij Raj Singh
English hearing
CRLA/2781 /1982 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 874
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 374(2) & 437-A - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 34, 302, 304, 307, 308 & 323- Criminal Appeal - filed u/s 374(2) CrPC - conviction and sentence - conviction u/s 302/34 and 307/34 IPC - Initially four appellants, later continued against two appellant due to deaths of two others convicts - FIR - assault - fatal injuries - death as a result of injuries - FIR lodged with delay due to fear - Defence claimed right of private defence - Injuries on accused medically confirmed - No cross FIR filed, but medical reports validated by government doctor - Court noted prosecution failed to prove genesis of incident - Only interested witnesses examined - Injuries on accused unexplained - Longstanding family feud acknowledged - court emphasized importance of explaining injuries on accused - Suppression of origin weakens prosecution case - court finds that, the trial court failed to properly scrutinize the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimonies of key witnesses, and overlooked significant gaps such as the unexplained genesis of the incident and injuries sustained by the accused - These omissions cast doubt on the prosecution's version and supported the defence's claim of private defence - court held that, the prosecution's case unreliable and granted the benefit of doubt to the accused - consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside and appellants were ordered to be released or discharged from bail, subject to legal compliance. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 13) Application Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Lakhan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Nand Prabha Shukla
English hearing
CRLA/2625 /1982 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 864
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code-Section 302 -Both the eye witnesses have deposed that several villagers arrived at the scene shortly after the incident- but none were produced by the prosecution- doubt on P.W.-2's credibility and the overall reliability of the prosecution's case-alleged murder at the residence of Mullu- the third eye witness-prosecution failed to produce Mullu as a witness- P.W-1 and P.W-2 are relatives of the deceased-with no additional evidence to substantiate their St.ments -P.W-2 is identified as a chance -prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal allowed. (E-9)
Title: Tunku Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
English hearing
CRLA/1846 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 841
HEADNOTE hearing
Occular evidence-Motive takes backstage in a case of direct ocular evidence -in the present case there are three injured witnesses whose presence on the spot is natural being family members. Appeal dismissed. (E-9)
Title: Attar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Nand Prabha Shukla
English hearing
CRLA/1806 /1991 Judgment/Order Date: 21-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 832
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 313 - When the ossification test was conducted-the appellant was aged about 55 years on 24.6.2024- therefore, the age could not have been ascertained with all exactitude at this age of the appellant -it would be necessary to refer to the age already referred to in the St.ment u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.7.1991-the report of the Juvenile Justice Board has extended two years benefit to the accused-appellant -and hold him juvenile on the date of incident- and the same is accepted and the appellant is declared juvenile on the date of incident. Appeal allowed in part. (E-9)
Title: Chhalla @ Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Jitendra Kumar Sinha
English hearing
CRLA/1231/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 822
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 376(2)(i) & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act-Challenge to - Conviction-Appellant was convicted for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a 6 year old girl-The FIR and eyewitness testimony did not mention any act indicating penetration-The victim's statement u/s 164 Crpc lacked clarity and consistency-medical evidence /(PW-6) showed no injuries- A chance witness (PW-7) could not identify the victim in court-At trial the victim's version were improved and not corroborated by other evidence-The court held that the prosecution only proved an act of "aggravated sexual assault" u/s 7/9(m) of the POCSO Act, not penetrative sexual assault-The sentence was accordingly reduced from life imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 10 of the POCSO Act- Since the appellant had already spent over 8 years in jail, the Court ordered his immediate release, subject to payment of fine.(Para 1 to 43) The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)
Title: Heera Kol Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain
English hearing
CRLA/1014/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 813
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sectionss 147 & 323 - The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(X) -BNSS,2023-Section 239 (216 Crpc)-The appellant challenged the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by special judge, SC/ST-The challenge was specifically against the dismissal of his application u/s 239 of BNSS (formerly section 216 Crpc) seeking alteration of charges framed u/s 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act- -The appellant filed an application for alteration of charges under SC/ST Act as he belongs to Schedule Caste and section 3(1)X) which applies only to non - SC/ST persons, cannot be invoked against him-The Special Judge SC/ST rejected the application-Held-Only courts have the authority to alter charges under BNSS not the parties-SC/ST Act provisions cannot be invoked against SC/ST persons, and courts must rectify such legal errors even if brought up by the accused-The trial court is at liberty to suo motu consider the application and if convinced, correct the erroneous charges.(Para 1 to 26) The appeal was dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Radhey Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh
English hearing
CRLA/482 /2004 Judgment/Order Date: 01-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 803
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 363, 366 & 376- Indian Evidence Act,1872-Section 114A- challenge to-conviction-Appellants were convicted for raping a 15 year old girl-The FIR alleged that the accused, with the help from others, lured the minor girls 'S' and 'A' took them to Haryana -Victim 'S' gave detailed statements u/s 161 and 164 CrPc, accusing both the accused of forcibly abducting and repeatedly raping her- Victim 'A' turned hostile during trial and denied rape, claiming she went willingly and wanted to marry accused Rajesh- Held, When the prosecutrix is a minor any alleged consent to sexual activity is legally irrelevant-Conviction u/s 376 IPC is sustainable even in absence of physical injuries or medical proof of recent rape- The consistent and uncontroverted statement of the victim u/s 161 and 164 Crpc, when found trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration-Turning hostile by one victim does not vitiate the prosecution case if the other victim's testimony is reliable and corroborated by circumstances-The victim below 18 years of age cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse, thus, even if the act is consensual in fact, it constitutes rape u/s 376 IPC-The evidence of one witness turning hostile does not demolish the case if other prosecution witnesses remain consistent and reliable-It affirms that consent is immaterial in the case of a minor-the evidence of the prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction if found credible.(Para 1 to 32) The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Rajesh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
English hearing
CRLA/16 /1986 Judgment/Order Date: 23-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 787
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 304 Part II/149, 325/149 & 323/149 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 313 - Appreciation of evidence of inimical and injured witnesses - While appreciating the testimony of the inimical witness closer scrutiny is required - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight without premeditation - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner - Conversion of conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC - Appellants along with several others were charged for forming unlawful assembly and assaulting Shyam Lal when he resisted the grazing of accused's bullocks in his field. Trial court convicted all under Sections 302/149 IPC with life imprisonment besides conviction under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. On appeal, during pendency, the appeal abated for most accused and survived only for Sukh Ram and Bhupal. Prosecution relied on testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence. Defence challenged delay in FIR, contradictions in witnesses' statements, and absence of specific proof as to who inflicted the fatal blow. Held : Court held that the testimony of inimical witnesses requires closer scrutiny but injured witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were found reliable. Independent witness PW-5's presence was disbelieved. Medical evidence disclosed ten injuries on deceased of which only two were on vital parts, one fatal lathi blow on the head being responsible for death. From the appreciation of evidence on record it was found that the injury received by all the five injured were simple in nature whereas only one lacerated wound and one contusion was found on the head of the deceased Shyam Lal. All the accused except accused Sukh Ram were armed with lathi and Sukh Ram was armed with Kanta. There was only one incised wound on the person of the deceased which was not on the vital part. Prosecution not been able to successfully prove that the act of the accused was premeditated and that accused took undue advantage. Incident took place due to sudden fight. Prosecution not been able to prove that the offence committed by the accused falls under Section 302 IPC. The offence committed by the accused falls under Part II of Section 304 IPC. Prosecution failed to prove that there was an intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased Shyam Lal because only one lacerated wound has been found on his head. A large number of persons assaulted the deceased by lathies and one lathi fell on the head of the deceased which proved fatal, therefore, the intention of causing death cannot be inferred. Prosecution failed to prove offence against surviving appellants Sukh Ram and Bhupal under Section 302/149 IPC. Considering that the incident occurred more than 40 years back and appellants had already undergone about two months' imprisonment, sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each payable to heirs of deceased. Conviction under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 IPC maintained but sentence modified to run concurrently. Appeal partly allowed. (Para 35, 38, 39) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Jitendra Kumar Sinha
English hearing
CRLA/12 /2003 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 775
HEADNOTE hearing
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Rape and Caste-Based Offence - Appellant challenged conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for raping a minor Scheduled Caste girl, sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine and life imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine, respectively. Prosecution relied on victim's testimony, corroborated by informant (father), alleging forcible rape in an Arhar field. Appellant argued the victim was major, consented, and no caste- based motive existed, citing absence of injuries and medical findings of habitual intercourse. The court held the victim's testimony, supported by prompt FIR and informant's account, was reliable, and absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not negate rape, per St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan and Prithichand vs. St. of H.P.. Victim's age was confirmed as 14 years 6 months via school records, negating consent, per St. of U.P. vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey. However, no evidence showed the rape was committed due to the victim's Scheduled Caste status, making Section 3(2)(v) inapplicable, per Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St. of Rajasthan. Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld, sentence reduced to 7 years with fine enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering appellant's age and time elapsed. Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside. Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 24-40) Appeal partly allowed.
Title: Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain
English hearing
BAIL/12043 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 16-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 770
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 363, 366, 376(3)-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 439 -The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 - Sections 5J(2), 5-L & 6 -Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of children) Act,2015-Section 3(iv)-The applicant had eloped with a 13 year old girl-The victim stated in her statements u/s 161,164 and during her medical examination that she had gone with the applicant voluntarily, had married him, and had consensual physical relations resulting in pregnancy-No signs of force or injury were found-The applicant had sought declaration of juvenility supported by school records but the application was not decided by the trial court, and the applicant continued to remain in regular jail-The court expressed serious concern over this lapse, failure of the trial court to recognize and act on the applicant's juvenile status-The court granted bail, directed the trial court to expeditiously decide the juvenile status application- (Para 1 to 25) The application is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Arjun @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
BAIL/4923 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 762
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506 & 392 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5 (G)/6 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 (2) (5) A - Issue before High Court is that informant 'X' challenged order dated 11.08.2023, whereby bail was granted to accused/applicants before Apex Court, claiming that 'X' was not given hearing and not made party to bail proceedings - Apex Court set aside said order, observed that mandatory requirements under both relevant Acts were not fulfilled - Present second bail applications filed seeking bail for accused-applicants - Apart from merits, it was argued that informant 'X' was personally served notice. She did not appear through counsel in one bail matter, while her counsel appeared in connected bail application - Statutory provisions as in Section 439(1A), Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3), SC/ST Act has been complied by High Court, but victim has manipulated, mis-represented, and concealed material facts, documents before Apex Court and obtained order, which is gross misuse of process of Court and because of conduct of 'X' , accused/applicants languishing in jail. (Para 21, 22, 26) Applications allowed. (E-13)
Title: Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Gautam Chowdhary
English hearing
WTAX/1603/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 713
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-CGST Act-Sections 122 & 73/74-Petitioner challenged a show cause notice proposing a penalty of Rs. 2,735,113,681 u/s 122 (ii) and (vii) of CGST Act for alleged issuance of fake invoices and availing ITC without actual supply of goods-Proceedings under section 74 against the petitioner were dropped based on lack of evidence of tax evasion-Petitioner argued that section 122 is penal in nature and requires a criminal trial not departmental adjudication-Held, proceedings u/s 122 are independent and need not abate merely because proceedings u/s 74 are dropped because penalty u/s 122 is civil in nature, distinct from criminal prosecution u/s 132 of the Act-Mens rea (intention) in tax statutes does not necessarily convert proceedings into criminal trials-Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, and the penalty proceedings u/s 122 were allowed to continue.(Para 1 to 56) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Vipin Chandra Dixit
English hearing
WRIA/6273/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 15-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 711
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Succession Certificate - Requirement in case of rival claims - Validity of claim by children from two marriages. Held: Succession certificate is not mandatorily required in all cases of compassionate appointment. Where rival claims are set up by heirs from both the first and second wife, children born out of even void/illegal marriage are treated as legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and have equal right to be considered for compassionate appointment. Authority cannot exclude such children. Impugned order directing petitioner to obtain succession certificate quashed. Matter remanded to competent authority to assess rival claims under Rule 17 of the U.P. Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974 and offer appointment to the most deserving dependent. Writ Petition allowed.
Title: Prince Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WRIA/5151/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 701
HEADNOTE hearing
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - IIT Kanpur Statutes, Statute 13(9)(b) - Misconduct by Professor - Allegations of disparaging remarks against a colleague belonging to SC category and convening of an unauthorized faculty meeting questioning appointment - Inquiry held, charges found proved - Board of Governors imposed penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect for two years and debarment from holding administrative responsibilities for three years - Validity. Held: The charges established derogated from discipline and constituted service misconduct; penalty of withholding increments is permissible under Statute 13(9)(b)(ii). However, debarment from holding administrative responsibilities for a period of three years is not one of the penalties enumerated under Statute 13(9)(b). The said punishment is beyond the authority of the IIT, manifestly illegal, and stands quashed. Penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect sustained. Writ Petition partly allowed.
Title: Dr. Sanjay Mittal Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
SPLA/117 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 05-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 696
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - UP Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 - UP Higher Education Act, 1980 - Section 13(4) - Jurisdiction of Director - Selection list was prepared in furtherance of advertisement issued under old Act of 1980 - How far Director has jurisdiction to intimate the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in vacancy arisen after New Act - Held, the power available to the Director under the previous enactment, particularly, section 13(4) of the Act, 1980 would not be available to be exercised after the new Act of 2023 has come into effect - Once the new Act contains no power with the Director to fill up a substantive vacancy which has come into existence later, to be filled from a candidate selected in an earlier advertisement, the action of the Director would be without jurisdiction. (Para 15 and 17) Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
CRLA/5215/2003 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 679
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Murder - PW-2, injured eye- witness was neither injured nor eye- witness - Injuries on right side of face of PW-2 could never occurred in incident, enormity was evident from F.I.R. itself - When four bullets fired from front and four of them exited from back, logical conclusion that PW-2 should have injured by one of bullets which exited from body of deceased - PW-2 throughout changing his version - He St.d immediately after incident he jumped off motorcycle, ran through sugar cane field, then reached police station along with PW-1 - Later St.d F.I.R was not lodged then he went to maternal uncle of deceased, accompanied him to police station where F.I.R lodged - Further St.d he had seen body being thrown from bridge into river - Improbable story, as he only heard about manner in which body disposed of but never seen actual disposal of dead-body, disappeared from scene immediately after incident started off to take place - F.I.R lodged much later as mentioned in St.ment of PW-1 and PW-2 wherein they St.d after good amount of conference between police personnel, first informant and elders of village, F.I.R lodged - Other witnesses never come to witness box - When evidence on basis of which four accused persons acquitted, it could not have been possible to convict other two on basis of same evidence - Entire story about assailants coming on jeep disbelieved. (Para 29) Appeal allowed. (E-13)
Title: Asif Ali Vs. State Of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Nand Prabha Shukla
English hearing
CRLA/1585 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 659
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Kidnapping and Murder of minor child for ransom - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364 & 201 - Appeal against conviction - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8, 27, 118 - Evidence re-scrutinized and re- appreciated - Last seen evidence - Recovery of dead body and clothes at instance of accused - Law relating to competency and credibility of child witness explained - Prompt lodging of missing report and FIR enhancing reliability - Motive not essential when chain of circumstances complete - Testimony of competent child witness can form sole basis of conviction - Circumstantial evidence established chain pointing to guilt of appellant - Conviction can be based on complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one inference of guilt - Where minor child last seen with accused, who absconded, and dead body/clothes recovered at his instance, conviction sustainable even without proof of motive, if chain of circumstances complete and evidence inspires confidence.(Para-3, 35 to 40, 45,46,) Appellant, servant of complainant (PW-1), enticed 8-year-old boy - on pretext of giving old lottery tickets - boy last seen going towards canal with accused - missing report lodged same night - accused absconded - arrested next day with two others - on his pointing out, clothes recovered from bushes, dead body recovered from pond - post-mortem revealed death due to strangulation and drowning - two co-accused acquitted for want of identification. (Paras 4 to 14, 19, 23, 25, 33 to 34) HELD:- Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances. Last seen evidence, recovery of dead body and clothes at accused's instance, post-conduct, and credible child witness left no hypothesis except guilt. Co-accused acquitted due to lack of identification. Conviction of appellant (kalloo) under Section 302, 364, and 201 IPC upheld. (Para - 35,39,40) Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Praveen Kumar Giri
English hearing
CRLA/1326 /2004 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 654
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) -Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Independent Witness not supporting prosecution fully - Not a ground to discard entire prosecution case - Conviction can be based on related witness if credible - FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts - FIR only corroborative, not substantive - Evidence of P.W.1 held reliable, corroborated by medical and post-mortem evidence - "Related witness" not automatically "interested witness" - Conviction sustainable based on testimony of related witness found to be truthful, supported by medical evidence and corroborative facts. (Para 2 to 20) FIR lodged on 22.12.1999 - alleging fatal assault by appellants - on the complainant's father with lathis due to prior enmity - victim sustained head injuries - died on 24.12.1999 - case converted from Section 308 to Section 304 IPC. (Para - 6, 7, 8) HELD: - Contention that the independent witness (P.W.4) did not support the incident is totally misconceived and not tenable as the incident has been proved by P.W.1, and time and place of incident proved by P.W.4 - Findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any illegality, error or perversity warranting interference - Conviction and sentence upheld. (Para -19,20) Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Shiv Narain & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
A482/19916/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 07-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 647
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154 & 482 - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1), 4, 5, 5(1), 7, 10 & 11 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 170, 173, 175 & 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 419, 420 & 508 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 & 25(1) - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2024 - Sections 4 - Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - assailing the entire Criminal Proceedings - based on confidential information, alleging that some individuals were inducing people to convert to Christianity by offering money and medical treatment - Police conducted raid - Search & Seizure operation - SHO lodged FIR - several individuals were apprehended, and materials related to religious conversion were seized - St.ments were recorded - charge sheet - The applicants taken plea that the S.H.O. is not an "aggrieved person" as defined by the Act, which limits the term to victims or their close relatives, and thus the FIR and subsequent proceedings are void ab initio - The core issue before the court is "whether the FIR registered by the Station House Officer under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 is valid, given the term "any aggrieved person" in Section 4 of the Act - court finds that, the 2024 amendment to the Act and relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023 further clarified and expanded the scope of informants - court applying purposive interpretation and considering constitutional safeguards under Article 25, held that, (i) the term "any aggrieved person" includes the S.H.O., especially in cases of mass conversions involving coercion or fraud - and (ii) the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and did not warrant quashing under the Bhajan Lal guidelines - Accordingly, the application is dismissed - with liberty to the applicants to raise all defenses during trial, and since till date applicant has not been arrested by the police as such he shall not be taken into custody unless he fails to cooperate with proceedings. (Para - 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) Application Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar
English hearing
WRIC/1000337/2015 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 610
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop License - Cancellation of license and principles of natural justice - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Uttar Pradesh Schedule Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 - Section 28(3) - Control Order, 2016 - Government Order dated 29.07.2004 - Doctrine of audi alteram partem - A fair price shop license is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) - Relationship between the State and a licensee is that of a principal and an agent - Inquiry for cancellation is summary in nature and requires adherence to the broad principles of natural justice, not a detailed, full-fledged inquiry akin to a departmental inquiry - State as principal may terminate agency contract subject to non-arbitrariness. (Para - 22, 28, 31, 44 to 47, 52, 53, 58) A fair price shop licensee's license was initially cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate - which was later set aside on appeal for being ex parte - After a remand, the license was again cancelled - subsequent appeal was dismissed - leading to the instant writ petition. (Para - 2 to 14) HELD: - Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. Inquiry was summary in nature and did not require a full- fledged departmental-style hearing. Petitioner was merely a licensee and did not have a fundamental right. Court found no reason to interfere with the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the appellate authority. State being the principal has the right to terminate the contract. (Para - 49,52,53,58,59) Petition dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Mohd. Mustkeem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Jaspreet Singh
English hearing