Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed after a period of limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
A.G.A. to file objection against the application the application for condonation of delay within fifteen days.
List thereafter.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with Crl. Appeal No.2820 of 2009.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010. In re :
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed after a period of limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
A.G.A. to file objection against the application the application for condonation of delay within fifteen days.
List thereafter.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar Singh and another. Appellants Vs.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shobh Nath Singh have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2006 (Case Crime No.33/05) for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 504. 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. was one year' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused- appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010.
Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010 Riyaz Ahmad Appellant Vs. State of U.P. ....Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006) (N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment. Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
25.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010 Riyaz Ahmad Appellant Vs. State of U.P. ....Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006) (N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment. Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010 Tripathi Original Suit No. 865 of 1997 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Taken up today.
Sri Mohit Kumar, plaintiff in person and Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Agrawal for defendant Dato Mohan Swami are present.
Today in this case both the parties have to admit and deny the documents filed by each other. The documents are alleged to be in a sealed cover with the Registrar which have not been sent to this Court today with the file. Both the parties pray that this case be also taken up from morning on10th February,2010 when other cases between the parties are fixed for hearing.
As prayed by the parties, this case be fixed on 10th February,2010 for hearing.
Registrar of the Court is directed to produce the documents kept in sealed cover in the Court on the date fixed at the time of hearing.
21.1.2010 Tripathi Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2004 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Taken up today for hearing.
The applicant Mohit Kumar in person and Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for Dr. Dato Mohan Swami are present.
Since both the testamentary cases are to be heard together and Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 has been fixed for hearing on 10th February,2010, therefore, this case be also be fixed for hearing on the same day.
21.1.2010 Tripathi Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 Hon'ble Vedpal,J Taken up today for hearing.
Heard Sri N.K. Seth, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for petitioner and Sri Mohit Kumar, opposite party in person.
Sri Mohit Kumar states that his C.M.An. No.69254 of 2009 is pending for disposal. Sri N.K. Seth, Senior Counsel states that the petitioner Sri Dato Mohan Swami has moved an application before Hon'ble the Supreme Court for modification/ clarification of the order dated 27.3. 2008 and the application of Sri Mohit Kumar pertains to the matter for which application for clarification/ modification is pending for hearing before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up on 8.2.2010. He also states that his C.M. Application No. 12334 of 2009 is also pending for disposal and the copy of this application was sent to Sri Mohit Kumar by post but Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has not received the same, on which Sri N.K.Seth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner furnished copy of Application No. 124334 of 2009 to Sri Mohit Kumar today before the Court.
Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has to file an objection against C.M.An. No. 124334 of 2009, the copy of which has been furnished him today. He seeks fifteen days' time to file objection. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed that C.M. An. No.69254 of 2009 moved by Sri Mohit Kumar be heard after 8th February,2010 and Sri Mohit Kumar also seeks time to file objection against petitioner's application no.124334 of 2009, therefore, with the consent of both the parties the case is fixed for 10th February,2010 for hearing. Both the applications moved by the petitioner Dr. Dato Mohan Swami as well as Sri Mohit Kumar shall be heard on that date.
21.1.2010 Tripathi Civil Misc. An. No.4672 of 2010 in re Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006 Ram Pal Vs. Jokhu Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.
It has been stated in the affidavit annexed with the application that when the case was fixed for hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for the petitioner could not appear in the Court because he could not see the case in the cause list.
Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient The petitioner was not going to be benefited by getting the petition dismissed in default. The application is allowed. The order dated 26.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
List the petition for hearing.
21.1.2010 Tripathi I have gone through the representation of the employee (Sarfraj Ahmad,Stenographer,Bahraich Judgeship) dated 31.7.2007, the report of the District Judge dated 24.9.2009 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 21.4.2005, passed in W.P.No.5877(SS) of 1990.
The applicant joined the service on 1.10.1986 as a Stenographer in Bahraich Judgeship. He was ceased from service from time to time, I.e, 1.5.1988 to 4.1.1989,1.2.1990 to 14.2.1990,17.2.1990 to 24.5.1990,1.5.1990 to 26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4. 1992, but by means of the W.P.No. 5877(SS) of 1990 he challenged the order dated 1.6. 1990 ,ceasing him from services. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
Consequent to the said order, passed in the writ petition, the applicant shall be deemed to be in continuous service. The District Judge in his report dated 24.9.2009 has reported that no departmental enquiry is pending against the applicant. Nothing adverse has been reported by the District Judge against the applicant.
In view of the above, the representation is allowed and the District Judge, Bahraich is directed to pay salary of the period from 1.6.1990 to 26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4.1992 with all consequential benefits including the increment.
Tripathi (Vedpal) Administrative Judge Session Division ,Bahraich Bahraich 25.1.2010 Officer in Charge Computer I have to say that today,i.e, 25.1.2010 I have uploaded wrong order in Crl.Appeal No.138 of 2010, passed by Hon'ble Vedpal,J. In Court No.5. Kindly get it deleted at the earliest.
(S.P.Tripathi) P.S. to Hon"ble Vedpal,J.
Employee No. 2515 Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2010 Ashok Kumar Chaubey and another. Appellants Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Ashok Kumar Chaubey and Shiv Kumar Chaubey have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004 (Case Crime No. 50 of 1998) for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 (2)I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda . The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 3(1) (X) S.C. and S.T. Act was one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010.
Tripathi