Gujarat High Court: Problems of Earth Will be Solved When Cow Slaughter Is Stopped
A Gujarat court recently opined that when no cow blood is spilled on the planet, all its issues will be resolved and its well-being will be restored. Sessions judge SV Vyas made this remark as he sentenced a 22-year-old guy to life in jail for unlawfully carrying animals.
The court further noted that religion is the offspring of a cow since religion is in Vrishabha form, just as the son of a cow is known as Vrishabha.
The court was hearing the case of a defendant who was detained in July 2020 for allegedly transporting cows and their calves that were tied together with a rope and deprived of water and nourishment.
The defendant was charged with violations of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Cattle Control Act, and other pertinent statutes.
After reviewing the prosecution’s evidence, the court determined that livestock were transported for slaughter.
Consequently, it is likely that cattle were transported for slaughter. Accordingly, the court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to life in jail along with a punishment of Rs 5 lakh.
Karnataka HC: Directs State Govt To Pay Rs 3 Lakh Compensation To Lawyer Who Was Illegally Arrested
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the State government to compensate a 23-year-old attorney who was unlawfully arrested by police last month with Rs 3 lakh.
The Bench of Justice M Nagarasanna stated that the attorney’s arrest was contrary to the principles outlined in the Arnesh Kumar decision and stressed that the compensation awarded by the court would not affect the attorney’s entitlement to seek extra compensation in civil court.
In the present case, the petitioner possessed land adjacent to that of Bhawani and her husband, K Vasanth Gowda. The Gowda allegedly began impeding the petitioner’s property and attempted to install a permanent gate to prohibit the petitioner and his family from utilising the road leading to their agricultural area.
Accordingly, he obtained a temporary restraining order against Gowda and sought police assistance to defend his property. On 2 December 2022, however, the police closed the case, citing a land dispute.
The Bench noted at the outset that the arrest in the instant case was conducted in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives.
The court further noted that the arrest was done in the absence of a warrant and FIR registration.
In addition, the court noted that was attacked in the police jeep and compelled to testify against himself. Consequently, the court ordered that a departmental investigation be conducted against the involved police officials and ordered the state to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation.
Calcutta HC: NDPS Merely Because 180 Days Have Lapsed, Accused Cannot be Released Automatically on Default Bail Without Application
The Calcutta High Court Full Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Suvra Ghosh, and Justice Krishna Road finds that the accused cannot be released from jail automatically if he fails to seek for default bail after the statutory detention period. Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act grants default bail after 180 days.
The entitlement of an accused to statutory bail following expiry of the time of detention allowed under section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act is inchoate until he applies for it. Thus, he cannot be released automatically on statutory bail on the mere expiry of 180 days even if the prosecutor has failed to submit a report seeking extension of detention in terms of the provision to section 36A(4) of the Act before the said period. Order extending the period of detention under provision to section 36A(4) of NDPS Act on a report of the Public Prosecutor submitted after 180 days but prior to the accused availing of his right.
As a precaution, the Special Court should inform the accused of his right to statutory bail after 180 days, especially if he is from a disadvantaged background and unrepresented. Failure to inform the accused of his right does not entitle him to statutory bail until he requests it;
A Public Prosecutor report must document investigation progress and provide specific reasons to extend imprisonment beyond 180 days pending inquiry. The Special Court must be satisfied that (a) the investigation is progressing and
(b) there are compelling reasons to justify continuing detention pending inquiry based on the Public Prosecutor’s report and supporting materials.
Each case must be judged individually. Institutional shortcomings include failing to finish inquiry due to non-submission of reports of contraband samples. This may not warrant detention pending investigation. However, if the aforementioned fact situation is coupled with compelling circumstances like complexities in investigation in an organised crime racket or inter-state/trans-border trafficking, criminal antecedents of the accused giving rise to recidivism, abscondence of co-accused, etc., constituting “specific reasons” justifying further detention, the Court may extend detention and deny liberty.
Requests for detention extensions should be decided within 7 days. Adjournment must be explained. The accused or his lawyer must be present in person or via video connection to evaluate the application. No written notification or copy of the Public Prosecutor’s report is required.
Bombay HC: Right to Choose is of Woman Not Medical Board and Allows a Married Woman to Terminate 33 Weeks Pregnancy
Recently, the Bombay High Court permitted a married lady to terminate her 33-week pregnancy, stating, “The petitioner has the right to choose.” It is not the Medical Board’s right. It is also not the court’s prerogative to abrogate the petitioner’s rights once they have been determined to be within the scope of the law.
A Division Bench composed of Justices G.S. Patel and SG Dige rendered the decision in a petition filed by a married lady seeking termination of a 33-week pregnancy due to multiple foetal abnormalities.
In this case, the court had previously ordered a medical evaluation of the foetus, which concluded that “deformity is correctable at government and major municipal Corporation hospitals free of charge, and given the advanced gestational age, medical termination is not recommended.”
In circumstances such as these, we believe that the courts must take into account not only the existing facts, but also the reality that these cases raise significant problems of identity, agency, self-determination, and the ability to make an informed decision. The Court granted the Petition and authorised termination of pregnancy.
Allahabad HC: Cooperative Societies Upon the Change of Any Member in the Interim Committee, the Term of the Committee of Management will Not Extend From That Date
The Allahabad High Court recently ordered that the term of the interim Committee of Management will not begin on the day of the replacement of any of its members.
In this instance, the last election of the management committee took place in October 2016 for a five-year term that was scheduled to expire in October 2021.
In June 2021, however, it appeared that the AddnI. Housing Commissioner utilised his authority u.s. 35 r.w. section 38 of the Act and determined that all members of the Committee of Management had forfeited their right to continue, so replacing the elected Committee of Management.
In addition, the Commissioner appointed a four-person interim committee made of state authorities.
In response, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition with the Supreme Court. After reviewing the circumstances of the case and applicable laws, the court determined that the term of the Committee formed in June 2021 terminated in December 2021 and that no new committee was formed when the ACM replaced the ACM II.
In this context, the court ruled that the challenged resolutions were passed without jurisdiction because the six-month period expired on December 12, 2021, despite the passage of the resolution dated June 17, 2021, and according to Section 29 of the Act, elections should not have been held after the term of the committee of management expired.
Allahabad HC: What Remedy is Available to Complainant of a Complaint Case Aggrieved by Inadequacy of Sentence Imposed
In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the complainant of the complaint case does not have any right to challenge the inadequacy of the sentence passed by the trial court while it was convicting the accused for any offence in the complaint case. This decision was based on Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court stated that even if the state government does not come forward to challenge the inadequacy of a sentence that was handed down in a complaint case, the complainant of that case would not be remedial and he would be able to challenge the same by filing a criminal revision with the appropriate court. The revisional court would have the power to exercise any of the powers that were granted to it under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code by virtue of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Delhi HC: Grants Relief to School Teacher as Employers Cannot Compel Employees to Take COVID19 Vaccination
The observation was made lately by the High Court of Delhi that an employer cannot compel his employees to get vaccinated against the COVID 19 virus.
Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh made the remark while granting relief to a government school teacher who sought the court’s permission to teach or take other responsibilities without being forced to go for Covid vaccination. The teacher had sought the court’s permission to teach or take other responsibilities without being forced to go for the vaccination.
The court made reference to the decision made by the Supreme Court of India in the case Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and others, in which it was determined that the right to personal autonomy of an individual includes the right to refuse any medical treatment or vaccination in the context of an individual’s health.
24/01/2023
Chhattisgarh HC: Can Senior Citizens Maintenance TribunalOrder Eviction of Son
The Chhattisgarh High Court has declared that Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enables applications for the eviction of a child or grandchild if the conditions outlined in that section when read in conjunction with other sections are met.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari passed this judgement whereby the petitioner was ordered to vacate the house within a week in accordance with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the Act, 2007 and the Chhattisgarh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 there is no provision authorising the Maintenance Tribunal to evict a son, despite the fact that such a provision was enacted in some other states, particularly the states of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, due to the absence of enabling provisions, the challenged decree cannot stand.
Calcutta HC: When Two Adult Male Rape a Helpless Woman, She Would Be Unable To Resist and absence of Injuries Doesn’t Signify Consent
The Calcutta High Courtrecently ruled that when two adult males rape a defenceless lady, she cannot resist, even if she is uninjured. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta heard the appeal challenging the Additional District & Sessions Judge’s verdict and order convicting the appellants of a Section 376(2)(g) offence.
The High Court noted that married women’s freedom and agency at home are still limited.
Married women usually need permission from their in-laws to visit their parents. The neighbours and distant relatives brutally assaulted her. Her husband worked abroad. She waited for her mother-in-law to arrive before filing an FIR. The bench observed that delays in filing FIRs, especially for sexual offences, must be considered in light of the survivor’s mental health and society’s repercussions.
The High Court ruled that a vulnerable woman cannot fight two adult males raping her.
Under such conditions, her absence of injuries does not imply permission or improbability.
The survivor’s account is not ludicrous or improbable.
Kerala HC: Owner of Vehicle Can Also be Prosecuted U/Sec 113 (3) of MV Act If Vehicle Driven in Excess Weight
The Kerala High Court has declared that if a vehicle is overloaded, the owner can be penalised under Sec 113 (3) of the MV Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. heard the petition challenging the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s prosecution for crimes under Sections 113 (3) (b) r/W. Section 194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners are charged with carrying extra loads in their freight carriages.
The bench noted that one of the petitioners’ main arguments is that the proceedings initiated based on the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s complaint are not legally sustainable because the offences alleged against them are non-cognizable and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s final report. However, the records show that all these prosecutions were based on Motor Vehicle Inspector complaints, not police reports as required by Section 173(2) of Cr.PC.
The High Court noted that the petitioners claimed that Section 114 of the Motor Cars Act specifies how to handle vehicles with excess load. The officer may order the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from that place until the laden weight is reduced or the vehicle or trailer is otherwise dealt with to comply with Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite being a breach, it cannot vitiate the prosecution.
Orissa HC: Section 9(2) JJ Act when a Claim Is Raised Before a Court Other Than Juvenile Justice Board, an Enquiry Should Be Made and Evidence May Also Be Taken
The Orissa High Court recently ruled that a court that is not a Juvenile Justice Board should investigate and accept evidence.
Srinibas Patro applied to the Sessions Court under Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to be treated as a juvenile. Based on the date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate given by the Headmaster, Government Upper Primary School, Hilpatna, Berhampur, such prayer was made.
However, the court below relied on the certificate because there was no dispute to the School record. Further, when two opinions are possible on the same evidence. Borderline cases will favour juvenile status.
The bench looked at Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act and stated that basically, when such a claim is presented before a court that is not a Juvenile Justice Board, the court must perform an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary to ascertain the age, and record a conclusion in the issue. Of course, Section 94 of the Act can be considered, but the Statute requires an inquiry and, if required, evidence. The High Court further found that the lower court did not consider Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which makes the impugned order susceptible.
Delhi HC: Seeks Centre’s Response In A Petition Challenging Blocking Of Dowry Calculator Website
The Delhi High Court has requested a response from the Union Government to a petition filed by journalist Tanul Thakur challenging the court.
The Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh issued a notice in response to the petition challenging the communication dated 20.06.2022 and an inter-ministerial report stating that the website should remain closed. Notably, the aforementioned website was launched in May 2011 and was initially prohibited in July 2018.
It is important to remember that the website in question was launched in May 2011 and was blocked in July 2018. According to the petitioner, he created the website to shed awareness on the ills of dowry.
Senior Counsel Siddarth Aggarwal, who represented the petitioner, argued that barring a website that exposes social ills violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
It was also mentioned that the petitioner operates a free website and does not earn a dime from it.
On the other side, the attorney for the Centre argued that he need instructions in the matter.
However, the Bench determined that they will review the case and issued a notico in the matter.
Nonetheless, the Bench opined that they will review the case and issued a notice in the matter.
Karnataka High court: Able Bodied Husband Cannot Seek Maintenance From Wife on the Ground of No Earning
The Karnataka High Court rejected a husband’s demand for maintenance from his wife on the grounds of lack of income, saying it’s better to wear out than rust out. A Single Judge bench of Justice M.Naga Prasanna was hearing a Petition filed by Petitioner, Husband questioning order dated 31-10-2022 passed by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance and litigation expenses and rejecting IA filed by Husband. The petitioner/husband objected to the wife’s application, claiming that he has no means to survive. He filed another application to counter the wife’s application, claiming that he needs interim maintenance from the wife to support himself and his parents, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- from the wife until the petition is resolved.
The allegation that the petitioner has no employment and has no means to maintain himself and, thus, is not in a position to maintain the wife and in turn demands maintenance from the wife, is unacceptable as it is fundamentally flawed.
This Court believes the husband cannot afford to incapacitate himself and sustain an action under Section 24 of the Act to obtain maintenance from him. This violates Section 24 of the Act. Thus, the husband must prove a physical or mental condition that prevents him from working to receive maintenance.
25/01/2023
Delhi HC: Whether Cash can be Seized by the GST Officers Under Section 67(2) of the GST Act?
Recently, The Delhi High Court answered an important question of whether cash can be seized by the officers under Section 67(2) of the GST Act.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan was hearing the case with a prayer to direct the Respondents to deposit the balance value of Rs.1,04,00,000/ seized from Petitioner No.2’s premises and possession on 04.12.2020 during the search. Certain officers of GST, AE, Delhi, West conducted a search at the petitioners’ residence on 04.12.2020, according to Section 67(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017.
During the course of the search, the officers discovered a total of 31,22,87,000.00 in cash and took control of it. After examining Section 67(2) of the GST Act, the bench determined that seizure is confined to goods subject to confiscation or documents, books, or objects that are useful for or relevant to any actions under this Act.
The High Court found no provision in the GST Act that could enable an action of forcibly seizing currency from a person’s premises without actually seizing the currency.
The bench ruled that search and seizure powers are severe and must be utilised scrupulously in accordance with the law and only when the required criteria are met.
Bombay High court: Orders PIL Petitioner Advocate To Deposit Rs 2.5 Lakh To Show Genuineness
The Bombay High Court has ordered a petitioner-Advocate to deposit Rs 2.5 lakh within four weeks as a ‘precondition’ to hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by which he was not remotely harmed.
The petitioner asserts, however, that the market has been shifted to the site where the fruit and vegetable market is being constructed. The bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice SV Marne, however, questioned the petitioner as to whether the market shift had harmed him directly. The bench observed, after learning that the petitioner was not personally harmed by the relocation of a fish market to a neighbouring area, nevertheless he wished to proceed with the PIL, that the petitioner wished to proceed with the PIL.
Madras High Court: Permits a Brother To Be the Legal Guardian of a Schizophrenic Spinster
The Madras high court has broadened the meaning of “legal guardian” by permitting the brother of a spinster with severe schizophrenia to serve as her legal guardian. Although the authorities asserted that the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act prohibited appointing schizophrenic individuals with less than 80% impairment, the appointment of such individuals was nonetheless permitted.
The petitioner’s sister has a 60% disability. According to the Act, a person is classified as severely disabled if their disability exceeds 80 percent. The court emphasised that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act had already abandoned the idea of serious disability. The data demonstrated conclusively that the woman has a standard impairment. The judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence to appoint guardians and ordered the Madurai collector to approve the petitioner’s plea.
Punjab and Haryana HC: Credible Eye Witness Account To Be Given Preponderance of Precedence Over the Medical Account in Case of Contradiction Between the Two
Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a credible eyewitness testimony should take precedence over a medical account in cases when the two accounts conflict. The bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Kuldeep Tiwari was hearing an appeal challenging the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, in which the appellants were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 120-B PC and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in conjunction with Section 149 IPC.
The bench noted that the accused admits his presence at the crime scene and that he also admits he was behind the wheel of the offending car, which leads to an additional conclusion regarding the ultimate act. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the medical report and the eyewitness story, the credible eyewitness testimony is to be given preference over the medical account, according to the ruling.
High Court stated that the effect of minor deviations or contradictions between the previously made written statements by the ocular witness to the occurrence and his recorded testimony before the Court are insignificant, particularly when the ocular witness’s testimony regarding the presence of all the accused at the crime scene remains unrebutted and uncontradicted by the introduction of convincing evidence.
Delhi Court: No Civilised Society, Governed by the Rule of Law, Can Choose To Ignore Torture of Elder
After hearing a case of an elderly man’s untimely death, which the Delhi Police blamed on a traffic accident, a court in Delhi stated on Thursday that it expects the police chief to take necessary action to convey a strong message across the ranks.
According to the judge, no civilised society or institution controlled by the rule of law may ignore the abuse, neglect, or torture of an elderly relative. According to the court, the bare minimum a reasonable man may anticipate is prompt involvement to safeguard the safety of mistreated elderly, and it is desired for every institution’s head to ensure that this issue is not treated as a regular thing; if additional work is required, so be it.
Allahabad High Court: Judges should not issue orders automatically on printed forms without using their minds
The Court made the remark when it vacated a magistrate’s summons order in a criminal case, which was determined to have been issued mechanically, resulting in an abuse of justice. Recently, the Allahabad High Court stated that the conduct of judicial employees in delivering orders on printed proforma by filling in gaps without any application of judicial thought is objectionable and deplorable.
Consideration must be given to whether the evidence gathered by the investigating officer provides adequate grounds to proceed and whether there appears to be a violation of the law that would warrant a criminal trial. When taking cognizance, it is the responsibility of the involved magistrates to behave judiciously and to ensure that their orders do not suffer from a lack of judicial thought.
Kerala High Court: Directs CBSE to decide transgender student’s application for name and gender change
The Kerala High Court ordered the Central Board of Central Education (CBSE) to determine within a month on a transgender student’s request to change his name and gender on his 10th and 12th grade CBSE certificates.
Justice Shajy P. Chaly added that CBSE must request clarifications or further papers from the petitioner within two weeks if any are required. The court was examining a petition filed by a transgender individual requesting that the CBSE change his name, gender, and photograph on his 10th and 12th standard certificates.
The petitioner was assigned female genitalia at birth, but altered his gender and name lately.
According to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, whenever a person changes gender, the change must be reflected in all official records. He stated that he had approached the CBSE to replace his documents, but the CBSE informed him that he must first change his birth certificate before he can change his school certificates. However, even after amending the birth certificate, the CBSE did not update the information on his 10th and 12th class certificates.
This caused the petitioner to seek instructions from the Court directing the CBSE to amend his name, gender, and photograph on the relevant certificates. The Standing Counsel for CBSE argued that the petitioner’s case is still being processed, requiring additional time and documentation. Therefore, the Court concluded the case and granted the petitioner one month to finalise their application.
