Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. disposed of a petition considering the long litigation between the parties and gave directions to the competent authority.

In the present matter, the petitioner was an unemployed divorced lady who got selected for the post of Anganwadi worker but an appeal was made against the same by the Respondent 4 (who has been working on the post for more than 6 years) which even got accepted and the selection was set aside. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner maintained appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner maintained writ petition before the Court. Shalini Thakur, counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner was a divorcee, therefore could not be treated as a member of the family for deciding the income of the family, which was taken as the basis for rejection of appointment. And since she is a single mother she had a son to look after all by herself. While the counsels for the respondents S.C. Sharma, Shiv Pal Manhans and P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocate Generals with Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, contended that the petitioner has given her father’s address, which makes it evident that she was, in fact, residing with her father. And, that the Tehsildar also gave his findings establishing the same. Further, it was also alleged that the petitioner has remarried.

The Court after taking into consideration the long litigation between the parties, the situation of Respondent 4, who is working for more than 6 years on the post and the fact that the petitioner is a divorcee, who cannot be taken as a family member of her father for the purpose of income held and directed that for the interest of justice to be met the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi worker in and around the place of her residence in near future.[Heera Mani v. State of H.P., CWP No. 2772 of 2017, decided on 21-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Arun Bhansali, J., allowed the application filed to seek corrections, however, the Court ordered the applicant to deposit cost in regard to this.

The facts of the case were that the petitioners sought correction in one of the petitioner’s father’s name in the cause title of the order passed. It was claimed that due to some clerical mistake and typographical errors, mistake qua petitioner’s father’s name was committed and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the same should be permitted to be corrected. Along with the application, the amended cause title was also filed.

The Court in lucid words stated that nature of mistake which was claimed to be inadvertent typographical/clerical errors indicated that it was actually the result of casualness on the part of petitioners/counsel for the petitioners and such nature of mistakes leads to unnecessary burden on the Court in thereafter permitting corrections once the cases are decided. However, in view of the fact that once the petition had been decided and if corrections were not permitted, the petitioners would not be able to reap the benefits of the order, the Court permitted the corrections. Nevertheless, for the casualness on the part of the petitioners/counsel for the petitioners, it was ordered that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs 2000 as the cost with the Legal Services Authority of the Court. [Pep Singh Rathore v. State Of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 501, decided on 17-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Bench of B.A. Patil, J., allowed an application for the anticipatory bail filed by an accused, an engineering student to appear for the examination.

The petition was filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 354-B read 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.

The fact of the case are that the complainant was in her house with her husband and daughter, the accused-petitioner due to some old rivalry went near the house, took a stone and started quarrelling. The accused-petitioner also caused grievous injury by biting middle finger of the complainant’s daughter.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Paksha Keerthana K., submitted that there was a delay in the filing of the complaint. It was further submitted that the petitioner-accused was not present at the time of the alleged incident and the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature, thus prayed for the bail under the statutory provision.

The learned counsel for the respondent, Namitha Mahesh, vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner-accused tried to molest the daughter of the complainant and caused grievous injuries and is not available for the investigation or interrogation, thus prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

High Court on noting the submissions of the parties held that the offences under POCSO were not made on the accused-petitioner and thus in the interest of justice the anticipatory bail application was granted.[Pramod D.M. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 2616 of 2019, decided on 16-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., in a criminal revision petition presented before him, stated that no interference was required from the earlier order of conviction by the trial court though in the interest of justice cumulative sentence of the petitioner be reduced.

In the present case, petitioner impugned the judgment whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction and order on sentence. Petitioner was convicted of the offences under Sections 380 and 454 Part II of the Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences were directed to run successively.

An FIR was registered on the complaint of Kaushik Ganguly, who contended that while leaving the house he had locked it properly and on his return the balcony door was found to be open. On finding the same, he saw one person jumping from the balcony and running away and when he raised the alarm the said person was caught. The said person is the petitioner in the present case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, S.C. Sagar, submitted that, the trial court, as well as the Appellate Court, erred in not appreciating that no offence under Section 454 IPC was made out as the ingredients of Section 443 IPC (lurking house-trespass) were not made out. Extending his contention, he also stated that petitioner had undergone incarceration of 3 years 10 months and 20 days and therefore earned remissions of 9 months and 25 days.

It was noted that in terms of Section 443 IPC, for a person to commit lurking house-trespass, the prosecution not only has to establish house trespass but has also to prove that the accused has taken precautions to conceal such house trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser.

Since, no evidence was placed to prove the above, the offence of lurking house trespass was not made out. Though, from facts of the case, it was clear that the offence of House breaking under Section 445 IPC, punishable under Section 454 IPC was made out.

Thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the trial court in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 380 and 454, Penal Code, 1860. Order of conviction does not warrant any interference. [Lokesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7007, decided on 12-02-2019]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Eswatini High Court: This matter was brought before a Bench of M. Langwenya, J. for judgment on sentence.

Facts of the case were such that accused was found guilty of murder with extenuating circumstances. The accused was found to have been drinking alcohol at the time when the deceased was stabbed. Pieces of evidence were present showing that the accused was provoked by deceased which reduced the moral blameworthiness due to its effect on the state of mind of accused.

Accused defended by submitting mitigating factors such as his young age, his remorsefulness towards the crime, that he is a first-time offender and that he had already been in the custody for five years, five months and two days. Court referred the case of Samkeliso Madati Tsela v. Rex, (2010) [2011] SZSC 13 in order to decide on the sentence of accused which is an authority setting out the appropriate range of sentences in cases of murder in the country.

High Court was of the view that murder was a serious offence but considering the personal circumstances of the accused and his young age, Court was inclined to sentence him to twelve years of imprisonment, where the time period already spent in custody would be adjusted. [Rex v. Lwazi Tshepo Kubheka, Case No. 43 of 2016, decided on 15-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Division bench comprising of CJ Dinesh Maheshwari and S. Sujatha, J. pulled up an advocate who tampered with court records and directed the Registrar of the Court to make a specific report as regards the functioning of the office.

The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had filed the instant petition whereon certain office objections were raised by the Registry of  High Court. In order to overcome those objections, the petitioner applied whitener on a certain paragraph of the petition and then submitted that in view of such deletion, the petition no longer remained a public interest litigation.

The Court took serious note of the tampering of court records by the petitioner and expressed its reservations thereto. It was further noted that the petitioner initially submitted that the person-in-charge of the file had advised him to put whitener on that specific part of the pleading. It was observed that it was inconceivable as to how the petitioner being an advocate himself, could tamper with court records even at the instance of some other person. Upon expressing of such concern by the court, the petitioner submitted a memo along with an unconditional apology.

In view of the conduct of the petitioner, the court declined to entertain the present petition. However, in the interest of justice, it was left open for him to file a fresh writ petition which would be entertained in accordance with law.[C.S. Madhu v. Karnataka Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2018, decided on 14-11-2018]

 

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The National Commission, through a Bench comprising of Anup Kr Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Vishwanath, Member allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission in the present case.

The present case was filed by the respondents in the District Commission against the petitioners for an award of compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000 for the physical, mental and financial pain which was inflicted and Rs 20,000 legal expenses which had been incurred. The respondents had given a laptop for repair to the petitioners, who after having given an assurance of the timely repair of the laptop, subsequently did not respond to the correspondences of the respondents, nor did they complete the repair. The District Commission gave the respondents Rs 15,000 in compensation and Rs 5,000 for legal expenses, to which a revision petition was filed to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance of the petitioners. In the present revision petition before the National Commission, the petitioners have argued that due to certain pressing reasons, such as the resolution passed by the Bar, calling for all lawyers to abstain from work, illness, and incorrect date being mentioned on the cause list by the reader, the petitioners were not able to appear before the State Commission.

The National Commission held that the non-appearance before the State Commission was not deliberate and, as there were sufficient reasons for the absence of the petitioners, it is in the interest of justice that he be heard, otherwise his position in law will be severely prejudiced. Accordingly, it was decreed by the National Commission that the order passed by the State Commission be set aside, and the State Commission was to hear both the parties in the appeal and decide on merits. [Multycare Solutions v. Malay Bhaumik, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 404, order dated 03-10-2018]