0

Court Acquits Accused of Double Murder: Allahabad High Court

JAIL APPEAL No. – 1545 of 2019

Minni @ Meena v. The State of U.P.

Bench: Justices Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav

 

Indian Penal Code

Section 302 Punishment for murder
Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

PWProsecution witness

The accused of double murder was found not guilty by the Allahabad High Court.

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 When the informant went to meet her father Lallu and mother Lalain in the village Badkhorwa, she saw that her younger sister Minni and her husband Balram assaulted and killed her parents with a trowel, and they ran away from the house as soon as they saw her. The bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. In this case, the convicts/ Her husband Balram and younger sister Minni murdered her parents for money and property.

Mr. Anurag Shukla, Amicus Curiae for the appellants, argued that the FIR is ante-timed. The trial court found that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and found both convicts and appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the police arrived at the location first, a joint FIR was filed with them. Because they lived in a village 1 km away from the scene of the incident, the alleged eyewitnesses’ presence at the location is highly improbable. The trowel’s recovery and the blood-stained clothing are fake. The police planted and forged this recovery to create evidence.

The bench was to consider the following issue:

Whether the order passed by the Trial Court needs interference or not?

After reviewing the testimony of each witness, the bench concluded that the complainant Siyapati and Pohkar, who claim to have witnessed the crime, were unreliable. Their claim that the incident occurred on the day of the Deepawali festival and that they used to live in a different village that was 1 km away from the incident’s location renders their presence at the scene completely implausible. P.W. 1 has stated in the FIR that she went to the village of Bhadkhorwa to meet her parents, but both witnesses have given contradictory statements. The FIR makes no mention of her husband Pohkar accompanying her.

Further, the High Court expressed that Further more the recuperation of the weapon of offense is likewise profoundly suspicious on the grounds that P.W.1 Siyapati has expressed in her questioning that both the scoops for example one of Minni and one more of Balram were left at the spot and those were taken by the police. Then again, the Researching Official has expressed that he was given over the scoop by blamed Balram from his nursery.

The bench observed that “in the Forensic Science Laboratory report, there is mention that the trowel recovered from Minni. These all facts and circumstances create serious doubt about the recovery also. Further, there is nothing in the statement of the Investigating Officer that at the time of recovery of the alleged blood-stained clothes the accused persons told them that they wore the clothes at the time of committing the murder or the weapon allegedly handed over by Balram was used to commit the murders of the deceased persons. There is mention in the statement of Investigating Officer that Circle Officer prepared docket of recovery of weapon of offence, but that Circle Officer has not been examined before the Court as witness.”

JUDGEMENT

After reviewing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution could not prove the charges levelled against the convicts/appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a result, the contested judgement and order should be reversed.

 

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N

Click here to View the Judgement

0

PIL Against ‘Adipurush’ Movie: Allahabad High Court Issues Notice To CBFC

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) NO. – 728 OF 2022

KULDEEP TIWARI AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

QUORUM: CHIEF JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL AND JUSTICE BRIJ RAJ SINGH

 

Cinematography Act of 1952

Section 5A Certification of films.
Section 5B Principles for guidance in certifying films.

 

Cinematograph (certification) Rules of 1983

Rule 38 Advertisement of films

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 The Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed before it seeking an order restraining the board to grant a certificate for the exhibition of the Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon starrer movie ‘Adipurush’. The movie is set to release in June 2023.

The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Brij Raj Singh passes this order and posted the matter for further hearing on February 21.

According to the PIL petition filed by Social Activist Kuldeep Tiwari and another through advocates Ranjana Agnihotri and Sudha Sharma, the film casts aspersions on the characters of the famous epic Ramayana and tarnishes the image of Ayodhya’s cultural legacy and Hindu faith in general.

According to the PIL petition, the movie’s trailer is amateurish and immoral, which has wounded Hindus’ religious emotions.

The film’s trailer was released without a certificate from the Board of Film Certification in accordance with Section 5B of the Cinematography Act of 1952 and rule 38 of the Cinematograph (certification) Rules of 1983, according to the PIL plea.

As a result, it asks that the Board not issue a certificate for the movie Adipurush under Sections 5A and 5B of the Act because the trailer shows that the story offends devotees of the Ramayana and Lord Rama as well as Ayodhya’s cultural heritage.

In addition, the plea asks the state authorities to take appropriate action against the culprits, including the film’s producer, director, and actors, for violating various Indian Penal Code provisions.

 

 

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N

Click here to View the Judgement

0

It will be considered as violation of privacy if husband seeks mobile tower location of wife’s lover to prove adultery: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said on 30.11.2022 under Justice M Nagaprasanna in VS v. PKR & ANR. (WP 13165 of 2019) that disclosure of mobile tower location of the third person who is not a party to the proceedings would be considered as violation of privacy in case of matrimonial issues. Every person has a right to ensure that his/her privacy is not breached and can ensure the same in their incidental relationships.

FACTS

The 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent are wife and husband. After their marriage, the relationship turning sore, the wife files a petition before the Family Court seeking annulment of marriage with the 2nd respondent on account of cruelty. In the said proceedings, the husband files an application seeking call record details of the wife and her alleged paramour which the court allows. That is challenged before this Court by the wife in which she contended that none of the defense that she had let in qua the said interlocutory application is considered by the concerned Court. This Court, accepting the said contention, sets aside the order and directed the wife to prefer an application seeking review of the order. Answering the said application for review, the concerned Court refused to allow the said application but grants summoning of tower location details only from the concerned authority i.e., the mobile operator. The petitioner is the alleged paramour of the wife of the 2nd respondent as alleged by the husband. The said paramour is before this Court calling in question the said order on the ground that he is a third party to the proceedings. This Court, entertaining the petition, granted an interim order as prayed for, which is currently in operation.

JUDGEMENT

It was stated earlier that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. The allegation of the husband is that the wife has illicit relationship with the petitioner. The petition for divorce is not filed by the husband. It is the wife who initiates it against the husband seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that he wants his wife, there is a child born from the wedlock and child’s future is in jeopardy due to the act of the wife in having relationship with the petitioner. If this was the intention of the husband, he would not have waited for four long years as on date, in preferring a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He wants to fight the matrimonial case instituted by the wife for divorce and does not want to file a case for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, the intention of the husband is only to prove alleged adultery on the part of the wife for which reason the tower details of the third party cannot be permitted to be divulged. It would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy of the petitioner who is not a party, who is not put on notice and whose defence is not permitted to be projected even. Therefore, permitting tower details of the petitioner would be contrary to law without him being in the know of any proceedings between the husband and the wife, but only on an allegation of the husband that the wife is in illicit relationship with the petitioner.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, and best civil lawyer.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VAISHNAVI SINGH

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

‘If He Isn’t A Gangster, No One In The Country Is’: Mukhtar Ansari’s Bail Application in Gangster Act Case Rejected: Allahabad High Court

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION FOR BAIL NO. 11290 OF 2022

MOKHTAR ANSARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

HON’BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)

Section 147 Punishment for rioting
Section 148 Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Section 149 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
Section 302 Punishment for murder
Section 307 Attempt to murder
Section 506  Punishment for criminal intimidation

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The Allahabad High Court denied former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari bail in connection with a case under the UP Gangster Act that was registered in 2020, taking into account the allegations and criminal antecedents.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that Ansari and his gang members amassed enormous wealth by instilling fear and terror in the minds and hearts of the people, and that the law-abiding citizens of this Court would put his freedom in jeopardy. If Ansari is not a gangster, then no one in this country can be called one. Importantly, Ansari’s attorney requested that the bail plea be withdrawn prior to the beginning of the hearing; However, despite Ansari’s desire to avoid the Bench, the Court proceeded to decide the bail application on its merits.

There are claims that Ansari and his gang opened fire on innocent workers working for a rival contractor of Ansari in 2014, killing one person and injuring others. This led to the case against the UP Gangster Act.

It was said that the members of his gang wanted to spread fear and terror and warn others not to accept government contract work in his area. A charge sheet was filed following the conclusion of the investigation, and an FIR was also filed in accordance with Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Gang chart, in which it was noted that the gang’s criminal activities such as murder, etc., were noted, was prepared and approved by the District Magistrate because this incident created a tumultuous atmosphere in which people were scared and terrified. There is still a problem with law and order, and no one dares to testify against them.

 

JUDGEMENT

Observations of the Court In light of the circumstances, the allegations and the accused-rich applicant’s criminal horoscope, as well as the fact that, in the majority of cases, the accused-rich applicant was able to secure acquittal because the witnesses turned hostile due to fear and terror or were eliminated, the Court determined that he was not eligible for an increase in bail.

 

 

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N

Click here to View the Judgement

0

Is a Complaint of Non-Compliance with an Agreement for Assured Return with a Builder Maintainable Under the RERA Act: Allahabad High Court to decide

WRIT ­ C No. ­ 11108 of 2020

CASE TITLE: MS. MEENA GUPTA V. M/S ONE PLACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VARANASI, U.P. AND ANOTHER

BENCH: JUSTICE SAURABH LAVANIA

 

RERA ACT, [Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

Section 11 Functions and duties of promoter.
Section 34 Functions of Authority

 

  

FACTS OF THE CASE

On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow was deciding whether a complaint alleging non-fulfilment of an agreement for assured return with a builder is maintainable under the RERA ACT.

The case in which the allottee had deposited the entire price of the flat was being handled by the bench headed by Justice Saurabh Lavania. The agreement stating that an assured monthly return will be provided was signed while the entire flat price was deposited.

When the builder stopped paying assured return, the allottee approached the RERA. RERA said that on account of the enactment of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 this is unregulated. RERA said it is not the competent authority, the party has to approach civil court.

In the first appeal, the Appellate Tribunal said that it is a commercial arrangement and the Term assured return is not mentioned in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The following are a few of the questions posed in the second appeal.

(i) Whether the RERA/respondent No.2 has committed a grave error in holding that the Central Government prohibited the scheme of the Assured Return by bringing an Ordinance in the year 2018 in view of Placitum 2 of the First Schedule of the “The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019?

(ii) Whether the contractual obligation between the appellant and respondent no.1 as per the Agreement for Sale dated 01.12.2017 having the sanction of “The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019” is consistent with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and if it is, the learned Forums below have erred in law in non-suiting the appellant?

(iii) Whether in view of the statutory prescription made in Section 11(4)(a) read with Section 34 (f) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 the learned Courts below have committed a grave error in holding the complaint to be not maintainable, particularly when it is essentially functioning of Real Estate Regulatory Authority to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter and Assured Return is one of the obligations having the sanction of law as per Placitum 2 Schedule of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019?

 

(iv) Whether in view of the arrangement in the agreement between the appellant and respondent no.1 regarding Assured Return which is having statutory appeal under The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 and resultantly under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the inherent and natural inference that Assured Return is part of builder-buyer agreement is not having commercial transaction and the Appellate Tribunal has thus erred in holding the same to be not covered under 2016 Act?

(v) Whether the learned Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that Assured Return is independent commercial arrangement between the parties having trapping of profit earning as main aim in view of the fact that the Project is under the vigil of RERA and all actions, Inter-se appellant and respondent no.1 are the subject matter of regulations under 2016 Act?

(vi) Whether the authority as also the Tribunal constituted under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 erred in law rejecting the claim of the appellant in view of Section 8.3(a)(k) of the Act of 2016?

 

COURT ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the bench instructed to serve notice on the respondent and summon the records of the lower court.

 

 

 

  “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N

Click here to View the Judgement

1 510 511 512 513 514 1,645