# Court in Amrawati and another v. State - **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1174 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-11-30 - **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-amrawati-and-another-v-state-41740 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482application for quashing order of summoning offence under Section 420,467,468 CPC-on allegation no offence made out-held the question be raised at the time of framing chargedirection to consider bail application in view of full bench decision of Amrawati case-further clarified in Sheoraj Singh Case. Held: Para 7 However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within thirty days from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct 3 All] Jai Prakash Tripathi, Advocate and others V. State of U.P. and another 1175 the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 (57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit. Case law discussed: 2004 (57) ALR 290, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC), 2009 (65) ACC 781. ## Text 1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 experience of 18 months to the Inspectors already appointed for being entrusted the job of inspection. 15. The proviso does not lay down any essential qualification for being appointed as Inspector, but only speaks about the period of experience, when such an Inspector may be authorized for inspection. 16. Unless a person is appointed as Inspector, as envisaged in Clause (i), there would be no occasion for him to entrust the work of inspection and for making such authorization, 18 months' experience is necessary. 17. In case the government wanted to introduce some period of experience for appointment on the post of Inspector, it could be done only by making or amending the rules, as may be permissible under law. 18. The U.P. Public Service Commission since had incorrectly issued the advertisement laying down subclause (ii) of Rule 49 as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Inspector, which was governed by sub-rule (i), if has clarified the aforesaid position by issuing the corrigendum for correcting the mistake committed by it, there cannot be any exception nor it can be said that the Commission lacked competence. 19. We thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 20. The special appeal is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE.JURISDICTION CRIMINAL.SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. Case: - U/S 482/378/407 No. 810 of 2006 Jai Prakash Tripathi, Advocate and others ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Sri Rohit Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Sri U.C.Tripathi, Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482application for quashing order of summoning offence under Section 420,467,468 CPC-on allegation no offence made out-held the question be raised at the time of framing chargedirection to consider bail application in view of full bench decision of Amrawati case-further clarified in Sheoraj Singh Case. Held: Para 7 However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within thirty days from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct 3 All] Jai Prakash Tripathi, Advocate and others V. State of U.P. and another 1175 the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 (57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit. Case law discussed: 2004 (57) ALR 290, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC), 2009 (65) ACC 781. (Delivered by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.) 1. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by Sessions Judge Faizabad and order dated 23.7.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No. 6038 of 2005 whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under section 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. and summoned the petitioners as accused as well as the proceedings of Case no. 6038 of 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the sections are not made out against the petitioners on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that at this stage it cannot be said that there any misuse of process of court. 5. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that all the sections in which the petitioners have been summoned are not made out on the basis of allegations contained in the F.I.R. against the petitioners is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. 6. The order staying the proceedings before the court below is hereby vacated and the court below is directed to proceed in the matter. 7. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within thirty days from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 (57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if 1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit. 8. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for canceling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FERDINO I. REBELLO, C.J. THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. Special Appeal Defective No. 1017 of 2010 Rajendra Singh Negi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vinay Kumar Rai Sri Anil Kumar Aditya Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Governments Servants (Employment Leave) Rules, 2003-Rule-5(1)- Employment Leave-appellant without sanction of leave-proceeded on leave-the languages used "may" and not "shall"- meaning thereby the authority can sanction on refuse-the appellant without prior sanction can not go on leave as a matter of rights-considering the offer given by employer for joining -direction for favorable consideration given. Held: Para 10 The second question for consideration is whether there is a provision for Ex postfacto sanction. The rules themselves do not so provide as noted earlier. On a reading o the rules including Rule 5, it would be clear that the employment leave must be sanctioned before an employee can go on a leave. This being the position no ex post facto leave can be granted. (Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 19.7.2010 2. The State of U.P. Framed a rule known as the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Employment Leave ) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) were to remain in force only upto 31st March, 2008. 3. The appellant herein applied for employment leave under the aforesaid rues. The leave was not sanctioned, inspite of that the appellant proceeded on leave. The appellant sent various remainders but no action was taken on his application. Thereafter he filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 5578 of 2010 which was disposed of this Court on 3.2.2010. 4. The grievance of the appellant before this court was that he is entitled for sanction for employment leave which he availed of in the expectation that the same would be sanctioned in accordance with the rules. The learned single Judge after considering the contentions was pleased to observe that the appellant herein may approach the Director Panchayat Raj U.P.