Matter concerned with serious irregularity in lower court was forwarded to the High court Allahabad

Whether it is justified that A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur may deny to
accept the papers of plea merely on the ground that it is written in English.
Whether knowledge of English is bane in seeking justice in the subordinate
courts of High court of judicature at Allahabad.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P
    10:02 PM (3 minutes ago)
    to supremecourtpmosburgent-action, bcc: hgovup, bcc: cmup, bcc: csup
                         Chief Justice of India /Companion Judges
                         Supreme court of India ,New Delhi
Prayer-Today A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur
denied to accept the papers of plea “
In the compliance of order of Honble court passed on24/08/2015” for processing merely on the ground
that it is written in English while he couldn’t show provision which prohibit
aggrieved party in court proceedings  to submit representation in English.
Please direct the A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur  to accept the aforesaid papers
of  plea sent by your applicant through post when he denied accept.
Scanned copy of plea is annexed with this representation.
(iv) Form No.VI should be kept in English. Form
No.XI be kept in the regional
language unless the presiding Magistrate prefers
that it should be kept in English.
18. (1) Subject to the statutory alternatives in
the matter of recording evidence as
contained in Section 275 and 276 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, as far as
possible, the Sessions Judges and Judicial
Magistrates should record memorandum of
evidence in English in all cases and
(6) Attention of the Magistrate is invited to
Section 354 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal
procedure,1973, and the following Government
Notification, General Administration
Department, No.OFL1066(
dated the 30th April, 1966, published in Government
Gazette. Part IVA,(
Extraordinary), and they are directed that the
judgments and orders in
all cases and proceedings shall be written (either
in English or in Marathi in Mofussil
Courts (up to and inclusive of Session Courts))
although Marathi is determined to be the
language of the Court.
(7) Provided that Marathi documents in the
proceedings shall not be translated into
English unless otherwise directed by the Court.
In the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate
{A.C.J.M. (First)} Court ,District court ,District-Mirzapur .
Criminal Complaint NO.   -2315/07  I.P.C. 500/501 In the compliance of order of
ble court passed on 24/08/2015.
Complainant- Santish Dhar Dubey
                      S/O -Mr. Shiva Nath Dubey
                        Vill+P.O.-Nibee Gaharwar
                          Police station-Vindhyachal
                         Dist-Mirzapur ,Uttar Pradesh
Defendant  – Yogi M. P. Singh
                     S/O  -Shree
Rajendra Pratap Singh
                       Moh-Surekapuram ,Jabalpur Road
                         Police station-Katra Kotwali
                       Dist-Mirzapur ,Uttar Pradesh
Prayer-Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to correct
the error and instead of processing the case under section 244 of Cr.P.C. May
be processed under chapter xx of Cr.P.C. .Otherwise it is sheer violation of
Apex court Judgement.
With due respect your applicant wants to draw
the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that
counsel for complainant on 21/08/2015 argued  that
1-on the application
of your applicant Gmail is written consequently application is not
 Your applicant argued that application has been
already accepted by the earlier judge.
2-according to him
Allahabad High court has prescribed that
application be written before the courts be on the legal size paper but this
application is on A-4 size paper so court may not entertain the application.
 Your applicant argued that here provisions of Cr.P.C. And judgments
of Apex
court of India and Judgment of Bombay High court
based on the Judgment of Apex court of India can not be overlooked on these
flimsy grounds.
3-In lower courts
applications in English are not allowed so its Hindi version be made available
and Hon’ble Juge assured to made available the rulings but ruling still
  Your applicant argued that how your
applicant can translate the Judgment passed by the apex court of India and
Highcourts as he is not allowed.
 According to High court rules (General Rules
(Civil), 1957 ) 41. Translation to be filed with certain documents. Every
document produced by a party or his witness not written in Hindi, Urdu or
English shall be accompanied by a correct translation of the document into
Hindi written in the Devanagri script. The translation shall bear a certificate
of the party’s lawyer to the effect that the translation is correct. If the
party is not represented by a lawyer, the Court shall have the translation
certified by any person appointed by it in this behalf at the cost of the party
4-Application is sent
through post and court ticket is not affixed
not entertainable by the court.
 Your applicant argued that in sending the
application through post your applicant spent 14 times fund in comparison
affixing the court stamp which goes to treasury of Government of India so my
intention was quite positive despite this if you hon’ble Sir (A.C.J.M. First
Mirzapur) may permit your applicant to correct the application in regard to
court ticked ,then he will immediately correct it.
366. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding rule 365
no fee shall be chargeable for serving or executing – any process which may be
issued by any Court, of its own motion unless the order of the Court is for
payment of the necessary process by a party
; any process issued a second time in consequence of an adjournment
made otherwise than at the instance of a party or an intervenor;
any copy of a warrant,
order or certificate posted under 0. XXI, rr. 36, 54 or
 96 when the fee chargeable under Article 4 or Article 8, part I, or
under Article 4 or Article 7, parts II and III, has been paid; any copy of a
summons, notice, order, proclamation or other process posted in a Court house
or in the office of a Collector.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Chapter 20 Trial Of Summons-Cases By Magistrates
Section 251 – Substance of accusation to be
 When in a
summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the
particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and
he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or
 has any
defence to make
, but it shall not be necessary to
frame a formal charge.
Section 252  Conviction on plea of guilty
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea
as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his
discretion convict him thereon.
     Section 253 –
Conviction on plea of guilty in absence of accused in petty cases
1.       Where a summons has been
issued under section 206 and the accused desires to plead guilty to the charge
without appearing before the Magistrate, he shall transmit to the Magistrate,
by post or by messenger, a letter containing his plea and also the amount of
fine specified in the summons.
2.       The Magistrate may, in his
discretion, convict in his accused in his absence, on his plea of guilty and
sentence him to pay the fine specified in the summons, and the amount
transmitted by the accused shall be adjusted towards that fine, or where a
pleader authorised by the accused in this behalf pleads guilty on behalf of the
accused, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the
words used by the pleader and may, in his discretion, convict the accused on
such plea and sentence him as aforesaid/
     Section 254  Procedure
when not convicted
1.       If the Magistrate does not
convict the accused under section 252 or section 253, the Magistrate shall
proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced
in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such
evidence as he produces in his defence.
2.       The Magistrate may, if he
thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a
summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or
other thing.
3.       A Magistrate may, before
summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses
of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited
in Court.
Section 255  Acquittal or conviction
1.       If the Magistrate, upon
taking the evidence referred to in section 254 and such further evidence, if
any, as he may, of his own motion, cause to be produced, finds the accused not
guilt, he shall record an order of acquittal.
2.       Where the Magistrate does
not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he
shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law.
3.       A Magistrate may, under
section 252 or section 255, convict the accused of any offence triable under
this Chapter which form the facts admitted or proved he appears to have
committed, whatever may be the nature of the complaint or summons, if the
Magistrate is satisfied that the accused would not be prejudiced thereby.
Section 256  Non-appearance or death of complainant
1.       If the summons has been
issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused,
or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the
complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore
contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to
adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
Provided that
where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting
the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal
attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense
with his attendance and proceed with the case.
 2.       The provisions
of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the
non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.
 Section 257  Withdrawal of complaint
If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in
any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient
grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if
there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may
permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against
whom the complaint is so withdrawn.
 Section 258  Power to stop proceedings in certain cases
In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a
Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be
recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any
judgment and where such stoppage of
proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses
has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case
release, the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.
 Section 259  Power of Court to convert summons-cases into
warrant cases
When in the course of the trial of a summons-case relating to an
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it
appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence should
be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, such
Magistrate may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code
for the trial of warrant-cases and may recall any witness who may have been
 3-It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that in the case Smt Premalata Subhas Nabaria
vs Shri Paras Shantilal Kankaria on 21-Feb-2011 ,Bombay High court ,Bench S.S.
Shinde detail as annexure and summary as follows-Concerned case which you
Hon’ble Sir is examining is comes under code earlier punishable with
imprisonment 6 months but amended now punishable with maximum two years
imprisonment so falls under same ambit. Consequently take a glance of following
explanation based on judgement of learned judge in lucid style.
   Code is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or
with fine, or with both. As stated earlier, it is admitted position that the
case in hand is a summons case. If the case is a summons case and in which
maximum sentence can be given is of two years, in that case the 
Criminal Procedure Code provides scheme of trial under the provisions
Section 251 to 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the case in hand is a summons case, it was
not open for the Trial Court to take recourse to 
Section 244 or Section245 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Section 244 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as
follows : 
244. Evidence for prosecution.–(1)
When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the
accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed
to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in
support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the
prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or
to produce
such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be
groundless. 6. Perusal of 
Section 244unequivocally indicates that, what is
contemplated under the said 
section is
warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report. The 
procedure is stated U/Sec. 245 when the accused
shall be discharged. The order can be passed U/Sec. 245 if upon taking all the
evidence referred to in 
Section 244, if the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be
recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out, which if
unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
At the cost of repetition, 
it is
to be stated that, in the instant case only relevant 
Section is 403 of the I. P. Code, where the maximum sentence provided is for two
years. Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly tried the case as summons case. It
was not open for the Magistrate to take recourse to the 
Section 244 or Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that no court proceeding can be trust worthy if based on forged public
documents so order passed by Hon’ble A.C.J.M. (First) court on 12/06/2008 must
be complied by D.M. /D.P.R.O. Mirzapur. According to apex court order ,plea of
defendant must be ascertained before processing onward like examining witnesses
etc. Hon’ble may be pleased to take a glance of following attachment in PDF
form showing how the date nomination of enquiry officer Mr. Vijay Shankar was
manipulated from 31/05/2006 to 31/05/2007 in the letter of D.M. Mirzapur
through which Vijay Shankar was nominated and enquiry report of Mr. Vijay
 Whether in the name of section 244
of Cr.P.C. wrongdoings can be overlooked..pdf
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that
 Supreme Court of
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra
& Anr on 17 September, 2004
Author: S Hegde
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha, Tarun
Appeal (crl.)  1253 of 2002
Subramanium Sethuraman
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha & Tarun Chatterjee
Therefore, in our opinion the High Court was correct in coming to
the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of
the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which
is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. The copy of judgement is
already submitted before the court with representation dated 06/03/2015.
is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be
justified to overlook
rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all
set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to
reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to
justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb
grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you
Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                                      Yours  sincerely
              Date-11/09/2015                                                                                                    Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

3 comments on Matter concerned with serious irregularity in lower court was forwarded to the High court Allahabad

  1. Whether it is justified that A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur may deny to accept the papers of plea merely on the ground that it is written in English. Whether knowledge of English is bane in seeking justice in the subordinate courts of High court of judicature at Allahabad.

  2. It is obligatory duty of a judicial member to maintain the dignity of court but here because of suspicious approach and cryptic dealings our judicial members maligning the sanctum sanatorium. Whether this is not insolence of a judicial member that ho is taking under teeth the verdict of apex court of India. Apex court is the court of documents for the subordinates but it seems that anarchy is rampant in the lower judiciary.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: