# the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-12
- **Bench:** Yatindra Singh, B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-case-of-lal-kamlendra-pratap-singh-v-state-42176
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged."

4. In the facts of this case there is
specific allegation against the applicant
that he fabricated a 'will' and after
investigation police has filed charge
sheet
against
him.
The
petitioner
submits that he has falsely been
implicated in this case because of the
malafide of the opposite parties no. 2 to
4.

5. Perusal of the material available
on record, makes out commission of
cognizable offence by the applicant.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, at
this stage, on the basis of document
filed it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was
lodged due to malafide against the
applicant.
During
the
course
of
arguments, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that he is willing to
face the trial and surrender before the
Court and necessary direction be given
for protection of his liberty.

7.

Keeping
in
view
the
aforementioned
legal
position,
the
petition lacks merit and it deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

8. Since in this case, F.I.R. was
lodged after 10 years and a civil dispute
regarding the correctness of the 'will' is
also pending before the Court of
competent
Civil
and
Revenue
jurisdiction. Therefore, it is provided
that in case petitioner surrenders before
the trial court within a period of 15 days
from today then his bail application
shall be considered by the Courts below
expeditiously, in the light of guidelines
provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh
V.
State
of U.P.
2009(3)
ADJ322(SC) and Amrawati & another
V. State of U.P. 2004(57)ALR 290, if
possible on the same day.

9. During this period of 15 days
the petitioner shall not be arrested.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR,J.

Special Appeal No. - 2124 of 2011

State of U.P. and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Namrata Singh
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Y.K. Srivastava
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.A. Akhtar
Sri B.K. Mishra

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Petitioner obtained Degree of Shiksha
Shashtri-equivalents
to
B.Ed.
On
13.07.1999-institution in question was
granted permission to run B.Ed. Classes
in the year 1998-99-by NCERT-can not
be denied from Training of Special B.T.C
course.

Held: Para 6

The contention of the appellant has been
rebutted by the petitioner-respondent. A
counter affidavit along with letter of the
NCTE dated 5.8.2004 has been filed
wherein it has been mentioned that Sri
Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha,
New
Delhi
had
been
granted recognition by the Northern
1 All] State of U.P. and others V. Smt. Namrata Singh
413
Regional
Committee
of
NCTE
for
conducting
Shiksha
Shastri
(B.Ed.)
course
of
one
duration
from
the
academic session 1998-1999. In the said
letter it was also mentioned that the
Shiksha Shastri degree awarded by Sri
Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha, New Delhi is accepted by
the Government for the purpose of
employment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.Amit Sthalekar,J.)

1. This special appeal has been
filed against the judgement and order of
the
learned
Single
Judge
dated
16.9.2008 allowing the writ petition of
the petitioner-respondent and the order
dated 13.5.2010 dismissing the review
application
of
the
appellantsrespondents.

2. The petitioner- respondent filed
writ petition seeking direction to the
respondents to consider the name of the
petitioner for Special B.T.C. Training
Course.

3. The contention of the petitionerrespondent is that she had obtained
Shiksha
Shastri
degree
which
is
equivalent to B.Ed. certificate from Sri
Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha, New Delhi. She was not
allowed to go for training. In para-11 of
the writ petition it is mentioned that she
was not sent for training and no reason
was given for the same. The petitionerrespondent filed writ petition no.48433
of 2008 which was disposed of by this
Court and a direction was issued to the
respondent to allow the petitioner to
pursue her Special B.T.C. Course.

4. We have heard counsel for the
parties. With the consent of the parties
writ petition is being decided at this
stage.

5. The contention of the appellants
is that the marksheet of the Shiksha
Shastri was issued to the petitionerrespondent on 13.7.1999 on which date
Sri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya
Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, New Delhi was
not recognised by the NCTE.

6. The contention of the appellant
has been rebutted by the petitionerrespondent. A counter affidavit along
with letter of the NCTE dated 5.8.2004
has been filed wherein it has been
mentioned that Sri Lal Bahadur Shastri
Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, New
Delhi had been granted recognition by
the Northern Regional Committee of
NCTE for conducting Shiksha Shastri
(B.Ed.) course of one duration from the
academic session 1998-1999. In the said
letter it was also mentioned that the
Shiksha Shastri degree awarded by Sri
Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha, New Delhi is accepted by
the Government for the purpose of
employment.

7. In view of above, the degree of
the petitioner-respondent was valid.
There was no reason as to why the
petitioner-respondent was not sent for
training for Special B.T.C. course in
question.

8. We find no merit in the present
appeal. It is dismissed.
---------
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Revision No. - 2532 of 2008

Subhash Chand

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Smt. Archana Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate
Sri R.K.Pandey

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 357
(3)-compensation
of
Rs.60,000/-with
conviction
3
years
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-
under
Section
138
of
negotiable
Instruments
Act-Revision
against
conviction
in
case
amount
of
compensation alongwith fine deposited
within 2 month-conviction of 3 month
rigorous imprisonment converted into
already
undergone-Revision
partly
allowed.

Held: Para 3

In my opinion, there is no illegality,
impropriety
and
irregularity
in
the
judgment and orders passed by the
courts below. Hence, no interference is
called for by this Court in this revision.
However, as regard the question of
sentence, it is directed that payment of
compensation awarded by the court
below under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. of
Rs. 60,000/- which shall be paid by the
revisionist within two months from today
to opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/-
should
also
be
deposited
by
the
revisionist to the court concerned and
the sentence of simple imprisonment of
three months is converted to period
already undergone. Revision is partly
allowed. In case of default of payment,
as directed above, the revisionist shall be
taken into custody to serve out sentence
as directed by the courts below.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. )

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite
party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State. Perused the
record.

2. This revision has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 278-2008 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut and order
dated 18-3-2008 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Mawana, District Meerut by
which the courts below have convicted
and sentenced the revisionist under
Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act
with a simple imprisonment of three
months, imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
under
Section
357
(3)
Cr.P.C.
a
compensation of Rs. 60,000/- has been
awarded against the revisionist which is to
be paid to opposite party No. 2. The
counsel for the revisionist stated that the
revisionist is ready to pay the amount of
compensation awarded by the court below
to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- within two
months from today and the period of
imprisonment of three months may be
converted to already undergone. The
revisionist shall also pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/-.

3. After having heard learned
counsel for the parties and there are
concurrent findings of the courts below
regarding conviction of the revisionist. In
my opinion, there is no illegality,