Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)

Munshi Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2020

10. However, the Court is not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for applicant so far as he has placed reliance on Munshi Lal (supra) wherein the coordinate Bench has proceeded to a conclusion only on the basis of statement of objects and reasons of PDPP Act, 984 which definitely states that the Act was enacted to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion. However, as the said statement of objects and reasons says it is enacted to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property and to further specify the said vandalism and damage to public property also includes destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 19 - S Agarwal - Full Document

State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... vs Gyan Chand ( S/S 2422/2005) on 20 February, 2020

14. With the above observations, the abovereferred criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 522 of 2021 (State vs. Gyan Chandra Shukla and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2021 under Sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.-Kaundhiyara, District- Prayagraj pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-Vth, Allahabad are quashed and application is allowed. However, it is made clear that if the applicant repeats his act of encroachment, the concerned authorities are at liberty to proceed under clause 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the applicant can be dealt with under the provisions of PDPP Act, 1984 also.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1