Cases to be withdrawn registered against politician in UP

VOICE THIS WEEK IN UP GOVT

The government of Uttar Pradesh has taken a decision to withdraw the cases against the current chief minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath, Union Minister, Shiv Pratap Shukla and Shital Pandey, MLA from Sahjanwa, assembly constituency including 10 more accused persons from eastern UP. The matter is before the court in Gorakhpur district EasternUP. A letter from the UP administration has been sent to the DM Gorakhpur this week. According to the government, after scrutinizing many facts this decision has been taken.

The case was registered against Yogi Aditya Nath and 10 more persons under section 144 in police station Pipiganj Gorakhpur in year 1995. The matter when referred to the local court, it had ordered to issue non-bailable warrant against all these accused. However the warrants were not issued then.

Many such cases in UP have been registered. Yogi Aditya Nath had introduced a penal code revision bill 2017 in assembly on 21st December saying that the past state governments tenure had slapped more than 20 thousands cases over the public leaders in the wake of its political interests. He had said all these cases are to be withdrawn.

Voice from Public

Human Rights Activist Assad Hayat says that the decision has been reserved on another Gorakhpur communal violence on 22 December after the arguments in High Court Allahabad.

Yogi Aditya Nath is chief accused in Rashid Khan and others Vs State of UP and others.

According to Asad, the registered report reveals: on morning of 27th January 2007, the crime of loot, arson, insult of religious books, and sabotage at Imam Chowk and Mazar, situated at Khunipur, locality of Gorakhpur had been committed by Yogi Aditya Nath with his supporters -- Manoj Khemka, Bhagwati Jalan, Ram Avtar Jalan, DayaShankar Dubey, Harshwardhan Singh, Ashok Shukla, Ram Lakshaman.

The prosecution, Rashid Khan had registered the case under IPC section 147, 295,297,436,506, 153a in Gorakhpur Kotwali(crime number 43/2007).

Yogi had been arrested in this case; he was kept in the jail more than one week and released on bail. He had allegedly narrated his pang, weeping in parliament house how had jail wronged with him?

Rashid Khan has told that the charge sheet against these accused had been filed in the court after the investigation in this case; and the then Mayawati government had approved in year 2009 to begin this trial under 153a; consequently the court ordered of its cognizance taking.

The charges over the accused were to be framed after this order, but the court did not take any proceeding till 2014.

Manoj Khemka filed his objection was that the approval to begin the trial in year 2009 was illegal because of the order, instead of signing by Principal Secretary, was signed by Under Secretary whose signature is ineligible to begin the case.

Lower Court in year 2016 ordered on Manoj Khemka’s objection that the prosecution approval order has been issued after the governor’s assent and that order’s copies endorsed to the police officers were sent.

Next hearing was to be on 16th April 2016 that the judge was transferred. The new judge on criminal revision 558/2014 gave an adverse order, ignoring the previous one, and upheld the defendant’s statement that the government approval of prosecution was illegal.

Asad Hayat says that Rashid Khan challenged in High Court and the hearing was done. He pleaded that Under Secretary, Ramhet, had communicated to the court about the governor’s assent and the Principal Secretary’s approval which he had got on the file and attached its copies to the letter. The order issued by PS can be summoned from the office.

Farman Ahamad Nakvi contended before the court: "the issue is here that there is a foul play to save the political persons and the records inside the files are being wrapped. Incase let it be assumed that the signature has not been done by PS JB Sinha, the Under Secretary Ramhet’s signature on papers are fake. If it is in reality, shall it be assumed that this matter is still in pending under consideration of state home ministry; if so, who will give the approval of prosecution?  Whether the accused person, who is home minister and chief minister of state, will do it?”