6 Important Judgments of Allahabad High Court Decided on 30th March, 2018

1. Imran @ Tendu vs Adhikshak, Janpad Karagaar

National Security Act, 1980 - S. 3 (2) - the authority passing the order of detention in respect of a person in custody should have the reason to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order. The satisfaction that it is necessary to detain a person for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner is thus, the basis of the order.

2. Devi Sara Punmagar v. State of U.P.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Ss. 8 & 20 - the accused is a women and there was a prior information to the police that a women is carrying the charas from Nepal - the search was carried out in Mahila Post Peellar in privacy by the lady constables but none of the 3 lady constables is examined in this case who were the actual witnesses of the recovery - Thus, the recovery of the charas from the accused is not proved by prosecution which creates the whole prosecution case doubtful and on this basis accused-appellant is entitle for the benefit of doubt and the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 is liable to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed.

3. Vijay v. State

A. Consent of a minor for sexual intercourse is not material.

B. Evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of minor discrepancies appearing in their testimony.

C. Age of the victim is to be determined in the same manner as provided under Rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, for determining the age of a juvenile.

D. Conviction can be recorded on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim provided her evidence does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities.

E. Conviction of an accused can be based solely on the evidence of victim provided her evidence is worthy of reliance.

F. Evidence of victim is treated at par with the evidence of an injured witness and her testimony can be relied even without corroboration of any other witness, if it is found to be trustworthy.

4. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P.

A. Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, reported in 2016 (6) ADJ 1 is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and another Vs. Vithal Rao and others, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and also with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Ans: Negative

B. Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997, the distinction made among "Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini Farmers" is a classification reasonable having nexus with the objects sought to be achieved? Ans : Affirmative

5. Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P.

This was an afterthought, may be on account of enmity, that the injured has taken name of the present accused - revisionist at a belated stage to have instigated the co-accused to fire upon the injured. The learned lower Court has not made proper appreciation of the evidence on record against the accused- revisionist. Whatever evidence has come on record against the accused-revisionist does not appear to be sufficient to result in his conviction, if left unrebutted. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.

6. Haji Akhlakh v. Union of India

The petitioner has no previous antecedents also goes to show that he was not habitual offender for committing the offence under the Cow Slaughter Act. Simply because the incident dated 25.8.2017 which had taken place in early hours of the morning and some persons of the village had seen the severed head of Cow and it's remains lying near the Sugar Cane Field of Mujammil near the pond of Nawab Khan and seen the petitioner, his father and other accused persons, the tension in the area may have prevailed but the said act of the petitioner cannot be said to be detrimental to the disturbance of public tranquility as there was neither any loss or damage to any property or any person received injury or there was loss of life of anyone and it can at the most be law and order problem, hence detention order also vitiates on the said ground also.