Saket Court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Saket Court (South), Delhi: In a case of alleged leak of details of FIR containing sensitive information, Shilpi Singh J., issued notice to Station House Officer ‘SHO’ to explain how Hindustan Times came in the knowledge of the present FIR, the kinds of complaint in which the complaint is treated as sensitive information.

An FIR was directed to be registered on the orders of the Sessions Court dated 19-04-2022, after an application was moved by the complainant. The complainant states that he has still not received any information regarding registration of FIR but on 29-07-2022 an article was published in Hindustan Times, Hindi Editorial on the first page about the allegations of the complainant in the FIR.

Counsel for complainant submitted that once the FIR is registered it is uploaded on CCTNS which takes some time and to access the FIR, a person requires the name of the complainant, FIR No. and date of registration. He further submitted that the only person in knowledge of such details would be either DO or IO.

Thus, it was alleged that FIR has been deliberately leaked to the media as the complainant is a high-profile person and the said facts would result in tarnishing his image.

The Court noting that FIR was registered on 22-07-2022 and perusing the facts and allegations levelled, issued notice to concerned SHO with direction to explain how Hindustan Times came in the knowledge of the present FIR, the kinds of complaint in which the complaint is treated as sensitive information and discretion be exercised by the SHO to not share the same.

The Court further directed the counsel for complainant to show why such case fall under the sensitive information category.

The matter is next listed for further proceedings on 30-08-2022.

[Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. Jeena Joseph, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 30, decided on 03-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, Advocate for the Complainant.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Patiala House Courts, Delhi
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Patiala House Courts, Delhi: Nabeela Wali, J. took lenient view and sentenced a convict under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to pay Rs 2000 as fine and distribute 20 national flags of a specific dimension at Child Care Institutions/ Educational Institutions for children including Madrasas under Delhi Waqf Board and Observation Home for Children under the supervision of Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

The instant case involves the accused pleading guilty of a charge framed under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and did not claim trial. Thus, the accused was convicted of the aforesaid offence.

Counsel for convict submitted that the convict has clean antecedents and is remorseful of his act and thus the court must take a lenient view.

Reliance was placed on Kokaiyabai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 13 SCC 449 wherein it was observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and nurtured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanizing the world.

Further reliance was placed on Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, (2017) 4 SCC 546 and reiterated that it is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The Supreme Court further said that Courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of Crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced.

Thus, the Court took a lenient view and sentenced the convict to pay Rs 2000 as fine for the offence under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which stands paid.

The Court further directed the convict to also provide 20 National Flags having dimension 900 x 600 mm, as per provisions of Flag Code of India, 2002 to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

The Court further directed DSLSA having office at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to ensure and supervise the compliance being done at Child Care Institutions/ Educational Institutions for children including Madrasas under Delhi Waqf Board and Observation Home for Children.

[State v. Mohd Tariq Azi, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 31, decided on 06-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shubham Jain, Advocate, Counsel for the Convict.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Rouse Avenue
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi: While granting bail to the applicant Pramond Kumar Bhasin, Ajay Gulati, J. observed that the charge sheet has not even mentioned the role of the applicant in demanding the alleged bribe from NGO GOREF even though the employee of an NGO Ganga Orthopedic Research and Educational Foundation ‘GOREF’ who is said to have paid the bribe to the applicant through a Hawala operator, was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.

Ajay Gulati J granted bail to Pramod Kumar Bhasin who is a public servant accused and arrested for allegedly extracting bribe from NGO’s / institutions/ missionaries whose applications for renewal of eligibility to receive foreign grants and funds were pending in the FCRA Division, Ministry of Home Affairs. The bail was granted observing various irregularities in the investigation and in light of other accused(s) been granted bail subject to certain conditions.

Facts and legal trajectory:

The applicant is a public servant who was arrested for demanding and accepting bribes from NGOs. Allegedly, as per the FIR, the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs for processing the file of an NGO named GOREF, and received Rs. 1.5 lakhs from GOREF via its employee Mr. E. Vageesh, through a Hawala Operator. Additionally, it was also alleged in the FIR that the applicant used to handle all of his ill-gotten money through Hawala operators. In fact, during the alleged handing over of an instalment of a bribe of Rs. 4 lakhs from an alleged Hawala operator named Gajanand Sharma., one of his henchmen, Robin Devdass, was arrested red-handed by the CBI. Further, as alleged in the FIR, the applicant is said to have demanded bribes from several other NGOs as well.

It was detailed in the charge-sheet that an investigation has been conducted regarding the role of the applicant in contacting alleged Hawala operators for the handling of his ill-gotten money and also in accepting an alleged bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from a representative of Srijan Foundation- Swapan Manna, which was delivered to another Hawala operator named Vimal Tawaniya. The alleged Hawala operator Pawan Kumar Sharma was in turn handed over the said bribe by Vimal Tawaniya who is also a listed accused in the FIR

Analysis and findings:

In the Court, the Public Prosecutor for CBI strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that the role of the applicant is very serious in nature, and he is suspected to be the king-pin of the entire conspiracy involving illegal renewals of various NGOs/missionaries to receive foreign funding, for illegal monetary gains under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 ‘FCRA’

The Court noted that neither the alleged hawala operators, Gajanand Sharma and Vimal Tawaniya nor the representative of Srijan Foundation, Swapan Manna have been arrested although they have been mentioned in the charge sheet along with the present applicant. Further investigation has been kept pending, as per the charge sheet.

The Court observed that although in the FIR, the role of the applicant has been highlighted for demanding bribes from various NGOs and routing the alleged bribe received through Hawala operators, the charge sheet mentions only one such foundation which is Srijan Foundation. Additionally, the charge sheet has not even mentioned the role of the applicant in demanding the alleged bribe from NGO GOREF even though Mr. E. Vageesh, an employee of GOREF who is said to have paid the bribe to the applicant through a Hawala operator, was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation. The court noted that the role of the applicant regarding the case of NGO GOREF seems to have been completely forgotten by the investigating officer. The court also noted that the applicant has been in custody for a period of over two months as of the day of this hearing.

On a specific query by the Court, the Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that he has seized the FCRA files of NGO GOREF and Srijan Foundation. However, the Court observed that there was no explanation provided as to why was the representative of Srijan Foundation and the alleged Hawala operator who was asked to handle the alleged bribe paid by Srijan Foundation, have not even been arrested despite being mentioned in the charge sheet. The Court reiterated the observation that was made while granting bail to E. Vageesh who allegedly paid the bribe to the applicant on behalf of NGO GOREF that the CBI has been adopting double standards in regard to the accused persons having same set of allegations appearing against them.

Thus, the Court concluded that the alleged Hawala operators Pawan Kumar Sharma and Ramanand Pareek who have handled the ill-gotten money of the applicant, and Mr. Anish Selvaraj (private person) who was allegedly working in close conspiracy with the applicant to contact the NGOs who were ready to pay bribes for getting their pending FCRA files expedited, have already been granted bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to some conditions.

[Pramod Kumar Bhasin v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 28, decided on 21-07-2022]


Appearance by:  

For Accused: Sumer Singh Boparai, Abhishek Pati, Nikhil Pahwa & Sidhant Saraswat

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Due to the alarming upsurge in the Covid-19 cases in the NCT of Delhi, all Benches of Delhi High Court shall, with effect from 19-04-2021, take up extremely urgent matters filed in the year 2021 only.

It has been further ordered that the other pending routine/non-urgent matters and the matters filed/listed before this Court between 22-3-2020 and 31-12-2020 shall not be taken up by this Court and such matters shall be adjourned “en bloc” as per the dates already notified. In case of any extreme urgency, the request in the pending matters may be made on the already notified designated link.

Link for the NOTIFICATION


In view of the alarming rise in the Covid-19 cases in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, all the Courts of Registrar and Joint Registrar (Judicial) shall take up only urgent cases through videoconferencing mode and all other matters be adjourned en bloc and information in this regard be uploaded on the website of this Court.

Link to the NOTIFICATION


All the Judicial Officers of the District Courts in Delhi shall take up only urgent cases of their respective Courts, through videoconferencing mode. It is further ordered that all other matters listed before Delhi District Courts be adjourned en bloc by respective courts and information in this regard be uploaded on the website(s) of Delhi District Courts.

Link to the NOTIFICATION



Delhi High Court

[Notifications dt. 19-04-2021]

Tis-hazari
COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Office of the Districts & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi issues a Circular dated 18th May, 2020 in view of the Coronavirus Pandemic with following directions:

  • Lawyers/Munshis/Litigants/Naib Courts/Police Officials may be asked through court staff not to use saliva while affixing court fee stamps on the application/petition and envelopes containing summons/notices etc.

  • Officials are also directed to not use saliva while doing the pagination of files etc.

  • Court Staff advise the lawyers to use plastic sponge damper pad while inspecting judicial file.


Office of The District & Sessions Judge (HQs)

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

[Circular dt. 18-05-2020]