Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Chand Rai vs State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2018

Ved Prakash And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 August, 2022

"24.That the matter of the petitioners was examined and the regularization was not found in consonance with Section 33-C of the Act, 1982 and the mandatory conditions, which were to be considered by the Regional Level Committee, were not in fact duly considered in the regularization order. In this respect in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No.35090 of 2015 (Rjesh Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others), this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.12.2017 issued certain directions, which were to be taken into account while considering the claim of salary by the employees. It has been directed to the Secretary that he shall examine as to whether the appointment of persons claiming salary is within the sanctioned strength of the institution or not, whether the appointment had been made after following the procedure under Law including (a) advertisement of vacancy in the newspaper (b) constitution of selection of committee (c) selection proceedings having been made in accordance with the procedure applicable and the approval of the competent authority (d) the persons, who appointed, were possessed of the required minimum qualification on the date of selection. It has also been directed that if any or all of the aforesaid conditions are found to be lacking, the Secretary shall not issue any order for payment of salary from the State Exchequer for such persons. After examining the matter of the present petitioners, it transpires that there were no specific finding recorded on these points while regularizing the services of the petitioners. Moreover, the advertisement in the newspapers and consitution of selection committee as per Section of 16-E and 16-F of the Act, 1921 was not done and therefore, the whole selection process was found doubtful.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Badri And Others vs State Of U.P. on 4 September, 2018

The contention that PW-1 and PW-2 are real brothers related to Ishwar Das and therefore they are partisan witnesses, the same is of no relevance inasmuch as they came to know of the crime only the next day. They have not exaggerated or embellished any material fact except as observed above so as to doubt their creditworthiness. Merely because one is related, is not compulsorily disqualified to render trustworthy testimony. Reference be had to the observations of the Supreme Court in the following cases; State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC, 1390, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishanpal and others, (2008) 16 SCC, 73, Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC, 184, Maranadu Vs. State by Inspector of Police, 2008 Cri.L.J., 4562 and in the case of Ramesh Chand Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal Nos.162 and 89 of 2011. There is no reason available on record as to why false implication of Badri Prasad and his son Ram Naresh be inferred. On the other hand there is enough convincing evidence to believe the complicity of these two appellants. The non-examination of Ravindra who is stated to be a friend of PW-5 in whose company they were present on the fatal day in a Ramayan Path would not obliterate the other evidence of recovery and the other incriminating material so as to diminish the strength of the case of the prosecution. PW-5 has described seeing the appellants in moonlight but he failed to convincingly identify the other two appellants namely, Govind and Pravesh Kumar. This therefore does not reduce his credibility in having heard the appellants gossiping particularly Badri Prasad and his son Ram Naresh who have been identified and recognized by him. The recording of the statement of PW-5 by the police after twenty days does not disqualify him as a proper witness inasmuch as any such minor lapses on the part of the investigation cannot be fatal for the prosecution if the case has been substantiated by corroborating evidence against these two appellants.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wazid vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2023

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, that in nine cases either FIRs have been quashed by the Supreme Court or charge-sheets have been quashed by this Court; in seven cases the applicant is not named, only investigation is going on and no charge-sheet has been submitted; and in one case relating to Gangsters Act, final report has been submitted which was accepted and except this case only one another case under the Gangsters Act is pending and the aforesaid judgment in Ramesh Rai (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant and the submissions made but without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1