Whether commissioner is competent to entertain the submissions.


me
To urgent-actionunworks@un.orgpmosb and 8 More…
Today
at 10:16 AM
Hon’ble Sir if an individual may be prosecuted for committing
good works (because these works expose the corrupt executives ,bureaucrats and
judicial members) by manipulating the documents , showing tyranny to submitted
facts and making mockery of Right to information Act 2005 ,then whether it is
justified and in accordance with the provisions of constitution of India.
Hon’ble Sir think from inner of your heart whether I  am really an
offender whose life is gone in defending false and fabricated prosecutions
instituted on the ground of manipulated public records. Hon’ble Sir if matter
be looked into  by an international agency ,then it will expose the
anarchy prevalent in this country causing gross violation of Human Rights of an
individual . I can’t request you Hon’ble Sirs to grant justice because when
this system couldn’t provide justice to our Mister clean prime minister Mr.
Rajeev Gandhi who openly spoken in parliament that only 18% public fund is
reached to needy and rest is siphoned by middle men and we have to check these
middle men ,then it is not possible to deliver justice to common man like me.
Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission
took the cognizance of submissions submitted by Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh
Moh-Surekapuram ,Mirzapur and passed the following order after well considering
the submitted facts. 
As informed by U.P.H.C.R. to Yogi M.
P.Singh –
 Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission
  Human Rights Building , TC 34
V -1,Vibhooti Khand ,  Gomati Nagar , Lucknow.
Case No.11039
(63)/2013-2014/DIL 
     
      
 Dated-31/12/2013
To,
         
    Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh 
         
   Resident -Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road
         
  Dist-Mirzapur 
Reference:Received information from
you /Complaint /Registered -Letter dated 26/9/13 
Subject-Miscellaneous
Gentle man ,
The complaint letter
received from you subject as aforesaid has been registered as 
Case No.11039 (63)/2013-2014 . After well
considering the matter ,Hon’ble commission passed the following order on
12-12-2013 as-
“The complaint is addressed to
the Hon’ble C.J.I. and other judges of the court who are competent enough to
grant redress to the complainant . No action is required by the commission
The complainant is hereby rejected
         
                 Sd/-
         
          (Justice U. K. Dhaon )
         
                  Member
         
                 12/12/13
   Please be apprised
accordingly .
         
                     
                     
                With regard 
         
                     
                     
                 Secretary
Fate of the letter petition submitted
on 22.09.2013 to Apex court of India reached to the applicant in the form of
following letter of Deputy Registrar of Supreme Court of India.
All communications should be
 addressed to the
Registrar, 
Supreme Court by designation ,
Not by name 
Telegraphic address :-
         
                “SUPREMECO”
         
         Supreme Court 
         
            India
         
        New Delhi
       
          
By Registered AD
         
                     
                     Dy.
No:-38583/SC/PIL (E)/2013
         
                     
                     
Dated:-16th December,2013 
From: Deputy Registrar ,
PIL (English) Branch , 
To: Shri Yogi M. P. Singh 
   
 Mohalla-Surekapuram ,
     Jabalpur Road,
   
 Distt-Mirzapur 
       Uttar
pradesh 
 Ref: Your complaint dated
22.09.2013 
 Sir, 
         
 With reference to the complaint mentioned above, I have to return the
original complaint . Your attention is drawn to the Article 235 of the
constitution of India under which control over subordinate courts and persons
belonging to judicial service of the state is with the High Courts. 
         
          You may take appropriate steps permissible
under
provisions of law. No further
correspondence in this regard will be entertained. 
         
                     
                     
                  Yours
faithfully 
         
                     
                     
              initial of under signed
         
                     
                     
                  Deputy
Registrar 
        Encl.:
 As above 
Please take a glance of following
links-
Article 235 in The Constitution Of
India 1949
235. Control over subordinate courts The control over
district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and
promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial
service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge
shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be
construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may
under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the
High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of
his service prescribed under such law
 32. Remedies for enforcement
of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court
by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except
as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
 
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 your applicant wants to remind C.M. reference 206042/C.M./ Mr.
Mahesh Pratap Singh S. P. Party 1/2004 ,to withdraw the litigation . Principal
secretary/secretary Law and Justice dated-10.08.2004. 
                    2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that F.I.R.
46/98 Time-21-10 dated-03.04.1998 Plice station-City Kotwali Mirzapur (U.P.)
Litigation report no.117/98 Section 147/353/504/506 I.P.C. and seventh criminal
law amendment act. Date of event-03-04-1998 Time-7:30. Place of event-A.D.M.
Avas 
Litigant-Rameshwar Nath S/O Narsingh Narayan
,Semaraa ,Belauchhaa ,police station-Dehat Kotwali ,Mirzapur 
                             Respondents-1-Manasaa
Ram S/O Mishri Lal, Mahant ka Shivala, Katra Kotwali Mirzapur. 2-Amit Kumar
Tiwari S/O Vijay Kumar Tiwari ,Shahar Kotwali 3-M.P. Singh 4-K.P. Singh and
40-45 name and address unknown . 
 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether in the name of
independence of judiciary any one can be hanged on the ground of false and
fabricated charges as tyranny is being shown by concerned in entertaining my
submissions . Here even letters of High Court were overlooked District Judge
Mirzapur. 
4-It is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that Enquiry officer still repeatedly accepting that he
was nominated on 31.05.2006 ,then whether court has jurisdiction to prosecute
your applicant on the ground of manipulated date 31.05.2007 . Hon’ble apex court
itself expressed in its order that courts are bound to deal with evidences as
it is. Whether it is proper that court is advising your applicant that you may
take shelter to appropriate court for manipulation of public record. Whether
court has jurisdiction to prosecute your applicant on the basis of enquiry
report of enquiry officer in which date of nomination was manipulated from
31.05.2006 to 31.05.2007. How judicial member accepted  that enquiry
officer was nominated on 31.05.2007 when E.O. still accepting that he was
nominated on 31.05.2006 and records are telling this truth. 
5-It is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that
 2.1. The High Court could not have shifted the burden of proof on
the
accused. According to the fundamental principles of the Evidence
Act, it is
for the prosecution to have proved its own case. The High Court was
not
justified in weaving out a different and new prosecution version.
The Court
is under the bounden duty and obligation to deal with the evidence
as it
is. No improvement or rewriting of evidence is permissible.
2.2. On careful consideration of the entire evidence, the documents
on
record and the reasoning given by the trial court for acquitting the
accused and also the reasoning of the High Court for reversal of the
judgment of acquittal, the view taken by the trial court is
certainly a
possible or plausible view. If the trial court’s view is possible or
plausible, the High Court should not substitute the same by its own
possible view. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
the High
Court in the impugned judgment was not justified in interfering with
the
well reasoned judgment and order of the trial court and the order of
High
Court is set aside.
Please take a glance of following link-

5 comments on Whether commissioner is competent to entertain the submissions.

  1. To urgent-actionunworks@un.orgpmosb and 8 More…
    Today at 10:16 AM
    Hon'ble Sir if an individual may be prosecuted for committing good works (because these works expose the corrupt executives ,bureaucrats and judicial members) by manipulating the documents , showing tyranny to submitted facts and making mockery of Right to information Act 2005 ,then whether it is justified and in accordance with the provisions of constitution of India. Hon'ble Sir think from inner of your heart whether I am really an offender whose life is gone in defending false and fabricated prosecutions instituted on the ground of manipulated public records. Hon'ble Sir if matter be looked into by an international agency ,then it will expose the anarchy prevalent in this country causing gross violation of Human Rights of an individual . I can't request you Hon'ble Sirs to grant justice because when this system couldn't provide justice to our Mister clean prime minister Mr. Rajeev Gandhi who openly spoken in parliament that only 18% public fund is reached to needy and rest is siphoned by middle men and we have to check these middle men ,then it is not possible to deliver justice to common man like me.

  2. Such tragedy is quite common with our public spirited people. .Most of the public functionaries have amassed huge wealth through wrongdoings but no one wants to take action against them.

  3. जो व्यक्ति समाज के उत्थान के लीए संघर्स कर रहा हो उसे परेसान करना कहा तक उचित हैं। हमें न्याय चाहिए ।

  4. जो लोकसेवक इमानदारी शब्द से परहेज करता हैं उससे इमानदारी की अपेक्षा कैसे की जा सकती हैं | यहाँ तो जज भी किसी इमानदार को सज़ा दिलवाने में अपनी पूरी ताकत झोक देता हैं कुछ जज इमानदार भी हैं |

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: