# C/M Shri Lal Bahadur Shashtri Junior High School v. Bapu Shiksha Samiti & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 163
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 847 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-shri-lal-bahadur-shashtri-junior-high-school-v-bapu-shiksha-samiti-ors-43400
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate, D R Chaudhary, I.K.
Chaturvedi, M S Yadav, Rajul Bhargava
Criminal Capital Appeal-conviction of
death sentence u/s 302, 34 IPC-with fine
of Rs. 20,000 on each appellant-life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000 on
each
under
section
364
and
201prosecution
comprehensively
and
reliably
established
the
chain
of
circumstances-with help of oral as well
as documentary evidences-presence of
appellant and intention of committing
crime
the
gruesome
manner-try
to
destroy evidence established-conviction
of Trail Court affirmed-considering age
of accused-and no previous criminal
record-not likely to be danger to societyoffence
not
premeditated-being
circumstances
evidence-except
death
sentence all other sentences given by
Trail Court need no interference-Appeal
partly allowed.
Held: Para-15
On 30.11.2003 the fingerprint expert Dr.
Rajendra Singh collected finger prints from
the
dressing
table,
wooden,
almirah,
stainless steel kettle, T.V. Stand, the mirror
of dressing table and washbasin of room no.
209 in presence of the witnesses and the I.O.
who prepared its memo (Ex. Ka. 18). The site
plan of the hotel room and bathroom
attached to it was also prepared by the I.O.
which is Ex. Ka. 32 on the record.
Case Law discussed:
(1983) 1 SCC 143; 2013 (14) SCC 434; (2014)
6 SCC 716; (2012) 6 SCC 174; 1955 AIR 801;
AIR 1994 SC 1733; 2002 (I) UPCr R 384; AIR
2002 (SC) 2920; (1983) SCC 143; (2005) 11
SCC 600; (1983) 1 SCC 143; 2005 SCC (Cri)
1938; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (2014) 4 SCC 375.

## Text

1 All. C/M Shri Lal Bahadur Shashtri Junior High School Vs. Bapu Shiksha Samiti & Ors.
163
has been held, petitioner has proceeded to fill
up the form as general category candidate as
at the said point of time even though
judgment in the case of Isha Tyagi (supra)
has been there, respective certificates were
not being issued to the incumbents by the
authorities concerned and certificates in
question have been issued only after
amending act has been introduced, in view of
this, to deny the benefit of being Descendant
of Freedom Fighters having his/her lineage
through
married
daughter
cannot
be
approved of by us.
19. Writ petition is allowed,
accordingly. Respondents are directed to
treat the candidature of petitioner under
the category of "Dependant of Freedom
Fighter" subject to due verification as
regards its authenticity and his result be
also declared, accordingly.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 847 of 2015
C/M Shri Lal Bahadur Shashtri Junior
High School
 ...Appellant
Versus
Bapu Shiksha Samiti & Ors. .Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Balwant Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Arun Kumar, Rajeev Misra
High Court Rules, 1952-Chapter VIII Rule5-Special Appeal against interim order-by
Learned
Single
Judge-granted
stay
without discussion of fact or reasons-heldmaintainable-neither the party nor the
Appellate Court could understand the
reason justifying the grant of interim
order-liberty to move fresh for interim
protection before Single Judge.
Held: Para-1
Even at the interlocutory stage, it is
necessary for the Court to bear in mind
the basic principles governing the grant
of an interim injunction, namely, the
issue of a prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable harm.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud C.J.)
1.
The impugned order of the
learned Single Judge which is of an
interlocutory nature furnishes absolutely
no reason as to why the learned Single
Judge has stayed the operation of the
order dated 29 May 2015 passed by the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Gorakhpur. The order neither records the
submission nor does it carry any prima
facie evaluation of facts. Even at the
interlocutory stage, it is necessary for the
Court to bear in mind the basic principles
governing the grant of an interim
injunction, namely, the issue of a prima
facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable harm.
2. Absent any reason whatsoever,
neither the parties nor, for that matter, the
appellate court would have the benefit of
understanding the basis on which the
interlocutory order has been passed.
3.
For these reasons, we allow the
special appeal and set aside the impugned
order dated 12 June 2015 passed by the
learned Single Judge. However, we grant
liberty to the original petitioner to move the
learned Single Judge afresh for the grant of
protective interim relief.
164
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Capital Case No. 962 of 2007
Connected with
Capital Case No. 903 of 2007
Vikas Sharma @ Moni & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Kumar Rai, Apul Misra, P.N. Misra,
P.S. Pundir, R.K. Rai, Ravindra Nath Rai,
V.P. Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, D R Chaudhary, I.K.
Chaturvedi, M S Yadav, Rajul Bhargava
Criminal Capital Appeal-conviction of
death sentence u/s 302, 34 IPC-with fine
of Rs. 20,000 on each appellant-life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000 on
each
under
section
364
and
201prosecution
comprehensively
and
reliably
established
the
chain
of
circumstances-with help of oral as well
as documentary evidences-presence of
appellant and intention of committing
crime
the
gruesome
manner-try
to
destroy evidence established-conviction
of Trail Court affirmed-considering age
of accused-and no previous criminal
record-not likely to be danger to societyoffence
not
premeditated-being
circumstances
evidence-except
death
sentence all other sentences given by
Trail Court need no interference-Appeal
partly allowed.
Held: Para-15
On 30.11.2003 the fingerprint expert Dr.
Rajendra Singh collected finger prints from
the
dressing
table,
wooden,
almirah,
stainless steel kettle, T.V. Stand, the mirror
of dressing table and washbasin of room no.
209 in presence of the witnesses and the I.O.
who prepared its memo (Ex. Ka. 18). The site
plan of the hotel room and bathroom
attached to it was also prepared by the I.O.
which is Ex. Ka. 32 on the record.
Case Law discussed:
(1983) 1 SCC 143; 2013 (14) SCC 434; (2014)
6 SCC 716; (2012) 6 SCC 174; 1955 AIR 801;
AIR 1994 SC 1733; 2002 (I) UPCr R 384; AIR
2002 (SC) 2920; (1983) SCC 143; (2005) 11
SCC 600; (1983) 1 SCC 143; 2005 SCC (Cri)
1938; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (2014) 4 SCC 375.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)
1. Both these criminal appeals, arising
out of the same judgment and order dated
1.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C. Ist), Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 184
of 2004 (State of U.P. Versus Rajesh Saini
and others), were connected vide order dated
13.2.2007 of this Court and are hereby
decided by this common judgment.
2. The facts in brief, if the case of
the prosecution were true, reveal the
tragic case of one young boy Abhishek
alias Lovey, who was kidnapped for
ransom and was chopped off into two
parts by the accused appellants, one of
whom (appellant - Vikas Sharma) the boy
used to call 'uncle'. After his murder the
accused appellants buried both those parts
separately into the sugarcane fields.
3.
The brief facts of the case as
unfolded during trial are that on the fateful
day i.e. 27.11.2003 the father of the deceased
boy - informant Pradeep Kumar Garg, who is
a practicing advocate in Tehsil Court,
Jansath, district Muzaffar Nagar, had gone to