As per Section 259, a summons case can be converted into a warrant case if the case relates to an offence that entails more than 6 months of imprisonment as punishment and the judge feels that in the interest of justice it the case should be tried as a warrant case. A warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case.

Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

251. Substance of accusation to be stated. 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

Legal Provisions of Section 252 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India. Conviction on plea of guilty: If the accused pleads guilty, it is imperative for the Magistrate to record the plea in the exact words used by the accused as nearly as possible and in the accused’s own language in order to avoid any misapprehension.

Central Government Act

Section 244 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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 any document or other thing.

Central Government Act

Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

245. When accused shall be discharged.

(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, 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.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for

Registration Number DPLAW/A/2021/60049

Name Yogi M P Singh

Date of Filing 30/12/2021

Status COMMENTS SOUGHT FROM PIO as on 31/12/2021

Appellate Authority Details :- Telephone Number:- 2238985, Email Id:-

Remarks :- PIO concerned to submit comments forthwith

  Nodal Officer Details  

Telephone Number 9454412484

Email-ID santlal10266@gmail.com

Online RTI Appeal Form Details

Public Authority Details :-

* Public Authority Law Department

Personal Details:-

* Name Yogi M P Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Lakshmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir, Jabalpur Road

Pincode 231001

State Uttar Pradesh

Educational Status Literate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-7379105911

Email-ID myogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

First Appeal Details u/s 19(1) :-

Registration Number DPLAW/A/2021/60049

Date of Filing 30/12/2021

Concerned Appellate Authority ATUL SINGH-II

Phone No 2238985

Email Id

* Ground For Appeal No Response Within the Time Limit

((Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters) )

* Prayer or Relief Sought Registration Number DPLAW/R/2021/60086 Name Yogi M P Singh Date of Filing 12/09/2021 Status REQUEST FORWARDED TO PIO as on 13/09/2021 Sir, three months 17 days passed but the concerned public information officer of the department of Law did not provide the sought information which is a mockery of the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. According to subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005, Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: This implies that public information officer violated the subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005 which cannot be overlooked. If the department of law itself has no regard for the law of land, then what can be expected from others? This is the root cause of lawlessness and anarchy in the state.

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB)) Supporting document not provided

RTI Application Details u/s 6(1) :-

Registration Number DPLAW/R/2021/60086

Date of Filing 12/09/2021

PIO of Public Authority approached RAM CHANDRA VERMA (Nyay-5)

Designation SECTION OFFICER, SECTION-5

Phone No 9454411614

Email Id adhinashtn@gmail.com

PIO Order/Decision Number Details not provided

* PIO Order/Decision Date

Registration Number DPLAW/R/2021/60086

Name Yogi M P Singh

Date of Filing 12/09/2021

Status REQUEST FORWARDED TO PIO as on 13/09/2021

Details of PIO: - Telephone Number: - 9454411614, Email Id: - adhinashtn@gmail.com

Note:- You are advised to contact the above-mentioned officer for further details.

  Nodal Officer Details  

Telephone Number 9454412484

Email-ID santlal10266@gmail.com

Online RTI Request Form Details

Public Authority Details :-

* Public Authority Law Department

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-

Registration Number DPLAW/R/2021/60086

Date of Filing 12/09/2021

* Name Yogi M P Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Lakshmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir, Jabalpur Road

Pincode 231001

State Uttar Pradesh

Educational Status Literate

  Above Graduate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-7379105911

Email-ID myogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

RTI Application Details u/s 6(1) :-

((Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters) )

* Description of Information Sought Applicant submitted complaint regarding irregularity, arbitrariness and tyranny in the High court of Judicature at Allahabad on 03 June 2013 and 21 April 2014 and after taking the pledge of the oath taker which means information seeker cum aggrieved applicant subsequently Honourable High court nominated district and session judge Mirzapur as enquiry officer in the matter. District and session judge Mirzapur through its communication dated 16 Aug 2018 invited information seeker to appear in person on 17 Sept 2018 at 4 O clock in the evening in his chamber. For more detail, vide first page of the attached PDF document to this representation cum R.T.I. Request. On 17 Sept 2018 at 4 O clock, information seeker submitted his submissions orally lasted more than half an hour and finally submitted written representation along with supportive annexures quite obvious from page 2 to page 5 of the attached PDF document to this representation cum R.T.I. Request. After taking witness testimony, no communication was exchanged either by district Judge or by High court of Judicature at Allahabad. 

1-Lower Judiciary is monitored by the state government and concerned High court consequently department of law and justice may provide the following information. Please provide the outcome of the aforementioned enquiry if available to them. 

2-Time taken by the enquiry officer to provide its findings to the concerned mandate if nominator not fixed time to complete enquiry. 

3-Provide the rule if any exists which prohibits High court of Judicature at Allahabad to provide outcome of enquiry to aggrieved complainant. 

4-Provide the maximum time duration taken by District Judge Mirzapur under the law to complete the enquiry concerned with alleged irregularities. 

5-District Judge Mirzapur may provide the information whether he furnished the enquiry report to High court of Judicature at Allahabad, if not why? if yes, then provide the date of report and date when made available to High court of Judicature at Allahabad.

* Concerned PIO RAM CHANDRA VERMA (Nyay-5)

Designation SECTION OFFICER, SECTION-5

Phone No 9454411614

Email Id adhinashtn@gmail.com

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB))