SC stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court directing Rampur's MP-MLA court to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed by Abdullah.

On July 23, the high court dismissed two petitions filed by Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," the high court said.

Abdullah filed separate petitions in the high court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA court.

BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth.

According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993.

Saxena also filed an FIR against Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019.

Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. Saxena also accused Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections.

According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.