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

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shivaji Pandey, J. in a civil writ petition held that when an authority has been empowered to hear a matter, it is that authority alone which has the power to decide the said matter, and this power cannot be delegated to another officer.

The present matter related to Anganbari Sevika at the time when Commissioner was empowered under the scheme to hear and decide the appeal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by a certain letter filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya who, instead of hearing and deciding the same, transmitted it to the Deputy Director, Department of Social Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya to hear and decide the appeal.

The Court remarked that when a statutory provision authorized the Commissioner to decide the appeal and, the said provision neither carried with it a power of delegation nor did it empower the Commissioner to transmit the appeal and get it decided by an officer not empowered to hear and decide the appeal, then any decision taken by such an officer would be a void order in the eyes of law. 

In view of the above, the order of Deputy Director was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner with a direction to decide the appeal and pass an order in accordance with law.[Sarswati Devi v. State of Bihar,2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2040, decided on 19-11-2018]