Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Shekher Dhawan, J. disposed of the writ petition after modifying the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

A revision petition was directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge whereby the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

The petitioner was held guilty under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Penal Code.

Facts, in brief, are that complainant-Rakhpal along with Prem Singh were going on a motorcycle. While they were on their way they found that the four other persons were going in a jeep being driven by the driver was hit by the truck which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner.  Because of the collision, persons sitting in the jeep sustained injuries and out of them, Gajender and Pawan died on the way to the hospital and injured Sompal alias Billu and Devender were admitted to the hospital. The driver of the offending truck ran away from the spot but was identified by the complainant and Prem Singh. Injured Sompal alias Billu also succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered.

The trial court held that the petitioner was guilty of commission of offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. It was contended by the counsel that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction and a lenient view on the point of the sentence be taken as the petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 8 months and 22 days (including remissions) against the awarded sentence of 1 year as per the custody certificate.

Ashish Sanghi, counsel for the State contended that petitioner does not deserve any concession regarding the sentence and the present revision petition be dismissed.

The Court opined that both the Courts below have already appreciated the evidence in its perspective manner. As such, the present revision petition, qua judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, stands dismissed. It was further held that as the petitioner had already undergone the actual sentence and thus the same was to be modified and reduced to the period already undergone while remaining in the custody.[Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1226, decided on 15-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Court deciding an issue on arbitrariness of the cap imposed on financial concessions for the differently abled persons held that the concession granted by the Government was a privilege and hence, Article 14 of the Constitution  was not invalidated by a reasonable condition imposed.

The facts of the case were, the Kerala Government by Government Order dated: 31.03.1998 provided for tax concessions for certain motor vehicles, including luxury cars, being purchased by differently abled persons. Later, the Government imposed a cap of Rs 5 lakh on the value of the vehicle entitled for exemption. The appellant in the present case, suffered from 100% disability and was  totally wheelchair dependent and his son was specially abled. Given the needs of the family, he decided to buy a ‘bigger car’.

The cap came to be impugned by the appellant by a writ petition, which upon consideration was dismissed by a Single Judge. Thus aggrieved, the question came for consideration before the Division Bench.

It was argued that the imposition of a cap and limiting the value of purchase amounted to arbitrariness and fell foul of Article 14. It was submitted that the imposition of the cap with the view to prevent misuse of the privilege was irrational.

The Division Bench of Antony Dominic and D. M. Naidu, JJ  acknowledged the grounds of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in classification of discrimination in terms of Article 14 of  the Constitution and held that the a privilege is different from a right. Dismissing the appeal, it was held  that the issue involved only a concession in the form of financial incentive for the physically challenged and therefore, the Government was justified in imposing suitable conditions, and the contentions of discrimination or unreasonableness did not apply. [C.H. Moideen Kunhi v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 5340 decided on June 7, 2016]