Latest news with #SaurabhSrivastava
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Watch: 2 BJP MLAs Rajesh Chaudhary, Saurabh Srivastava clash inside UP assembly; Akhilesh Yadav shares viral video
NEW DELHI: A video has gone viral showing a verbal clash between two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmakers during the monsoon session of the Uttar Pradesh assembly. Rajesh Chaudhary, BJP MLA from Mathura, engaged in a heated argument with his party colleague from Varanasi, Saurabh Srivastava, during a discussion on 'Vision 2047' on Wednesday. The clash occurred when Rajesh Chaudhary, representing the Braj region, could not speak during his allocated time slot between 9 pm and midnight. Lawmakers who were scheduled to speak between 6 pm and 9 pm extended their speeches until 11 pm, preventing Chaudhary and others from addressing the assembly. He raised objections, prompting a verbal exchange with Saurabh Srivastava, who was acting as chief whip in the absence of Ram Naresh Agnihotri. Following the spat, seven MLAs from Braj and West UP were accommodated in the 12 midnight to 3 am slot. Other members of the assembly were seen trying to diffuse the situation. On the other hand, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav shared the video on his official X account, commenting: "Misconduct and abusive language are the ladder to success in the BJP." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
High Court denies plea to quash chargesheet in Elvish Yadav snake venom case
In a major development in the Elvish Yadav snake venom case , the Allahabad High Court has rejected the YouTuber's plea to cancel the chargesheet and summons issued against him. Justice Saurabh Srivastava stated that since multiple FIRs and chargesheets have been filed, they must be examined during the trial proceedings rather than dismissed prematurely. Elvish Yadav had approached the court seeking cancellation of the chargesheets but not the FIRs. The single-judge bench clarified this distinction while denying his request, emphasizing that the allegations warrant a full legal examination. According to ANI reports, Senior advocate Naveen Sinha, appearing for Elvish Yadav, assisted by advocate Nipun Singh, has maintained that he was not present at the controversial rave party held in Noida, where snake venom and other banned substances were allegedly used. His lawyer argued that no drugs were found and that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds to invoke the Wildlife Protection Act against the content creator. For context, Elvish Yadav was accused of hosting a rave party where snake venom was allegedly supplied and consumed, reportedly involving foreign nationals. The event allegedly led to seizures among some attendees. These claims were countered by Yadav's legal team, which continues to assert his innocence. In 2023, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had also launched an investigation involving several YouTubers in connection with the case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like After Losing Weight Kevin James Looks Like A Model 33 Bridges Undo Elvish was booked under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy. Despite the legal troubles, Elvish Yadav remains active in the entertainment industry, currently appearing in reality shows Laughter Chefs 2 and Battleground. The case continues to unfold, with the court's latest decision marking a significant step toward a full trial.
Hindustan Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC: Proceedings not maintainable under Damage to Public Property Act
: The Allahabad high court has reiterated that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are not maintainable against illegal encroachment on gram sabha land. The same can be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction, the court has held. Quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant Brahmdutt Yadav, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in the Munshi Lal and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another case. In that case, it was held that 'as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to gram sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute, as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court.' In the present case, the lekhpal lodged an FIR at the Aurai police station of Bhadohi district against the applicant under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging that upon survey, he had found that the gram sabha land, which is a public property, had been encroached on by farmers nearby. It was alleged that there was damage to public property. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the high court. During the court proceedings, the counsel for applicant argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction. Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and another, the court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to 'curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.' The court, in its decision dated April 15, held that the continuation of process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and the court quashed the same.
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Allahabad HC drops case against man, says liking post on social media different from sharing it
The Allahabad High Court has observed that liking a social media post does not amount to transmitting or publishing it, and will not attract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act which deals with obscene and objectionable material. The observation was made by Justice Saurabh Srivastava while quashing criminal proceedings against one Imran Khan of Agra. "Even otherwise, from the material on record, it appears that no message which could be provocative in nature is available on record and merely liking a message will not attract penalty u/s 67 of I.T. Act or any other criminal offence," the court added. The court was dealing with an application filed under section 482 (inherent powers of the high court) under CrPC. The petitioner had moved to court seeking quashing of a case against him for liking a post by one Chaudhari Farhan Usman. Usman's post referred to a protest gathering that would be assembling near the collectorate to hand over a memorandum to the President of India. Mr. Khan was booked for "provocative messages on social media, which resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community for arranging a procession without permission." Quashing the proceedings, the court had also observed, "Even otherwise Section 67 of the I.T. Act is for obscene material and not for provocative material". The words "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" mean relating to sexual interest and desire, therefore, Section 67 I.T. Act does not prescribe any punishment for other provocative material," the court said. During the course of hearing, the applicant's counsel had submitted that even no such content was found on his Facebook account. However, the police said he had deleted the same but similar content was found on WhatsApp and other social media platforms. From the material on record, the court found that Mr. Khan had merely liked a message published by another person and no offence was made out against him. "Having heard the counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, I do not find any material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, as there is no offensive post available in the Facebook and Whatsapp accounts of the applicant," the court said in its order passed on Thursday last.
