HC recommends probe against trial judge for jailing wrong man

LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court recommended an inquiry by its vigilance department or any other agency against an additional sessions judge for sentencing the wrong man to imprisonment.
Manoj Kumar Shukla, additional sessions judge (temporary ex-cadre post-4, Lucknow) had allegedly sent one Moharram Ali to jail instead of Raju Yadav, the accused in an attempt to murder and Arms Act case.At present, Raju is absconding.
The bench comprising Justice Abdul Manteen and Justice DK Upadhyaya observed, Such negligence on the part of a judicial officer instead of instilling and consolidating faith in the justice delivery system erodes the same.''
The matter came to light after Moharram Ali's mother Shariful filed a habeas corpus petition before the Lucknow bench of the high court, saying her son had been wrongly jailed and that he was not Raju Yadav. Thereafter, on the basis of an inquiry instituted by the orders of the high court on November 6, chief judicial magistrate (Lucknow) Rajesh Upadhyay found that instead of Raju Yadav, it was Ali who was sent to jail.
The bench found it surprising that Shukla had reached to the conclusion that the person who had surrendered before the court was Raju Yadav without there being any identification on the application of the person intending to surrender. The bench summoned Shukla and asked under what circumstances Moharram Ali was sent to jail instead of Raju Yadav.
Shukla earned the displeasure of the court when on hearing the order being passed by the bench for initiation of an inquiry against him, he (Shukla) remarked: "The order is arbitrary and has been passed with biased mind." He further stated that either he be permitted the leave the court or be taken into custody.
Thereafter, the bench said, "Let the entire matter be brought to the notice of the chief Justice for suitable orders against the backdrop of the submission made by Manoj Kumar Shukla."
The bench has further recommended that inquiry should be made into whether Shukla conducted himself in a negligent manner, which resulted in deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioner for about two-and-a half months (82 days). The bench has also recommended for the inquiry to be concluded within three months or to the satisfaction of the time stipulated by chief Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.