Culpable homicide is not considered murder if the offender causes the death of the person who delivered the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident while being deprived of the ability of self-control by grave and immediate provocation. The High Court Of Bombay upheld this through the learned bench held by SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ in the case of NANDU DADA SURVASE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.1106 Of 2012).

Facts of the case – Narayan Salunkhe filed a police case in Pandharpur saying that his deceased daughter Shakuntala was married to the current appellant. The couple had two sons and a daughter who attended Ashram School. Due to hunger, Shakuntala and Nandu started staying in Anavali, Taluka Pandharpur, with their livestock four to five years before August 28, 2009. A sour note had occurred between the pair, and Shakuntala had moved home with her parents as a result. She was employed as a housemaid at the time. Rajabai, the deceased’s sister, raced home and told P.W.5 that when Shakuntala was waiting for a bus at approximately 8:00 a.m., her husband, the current appellant, accosted her, abused her, and assaulted her. They went to the bus stop, where they discovered Shakuntala had an incised cut on her neck and had died due to the injuries.

The appellant’s skilled counsel has argued before this Court that there is no rejection of the fact that the incident happened. She has pleaded with the Court to examine the facts surrounding the occurrence. The culprit, she claims, was driving down the road on his own. He was employed as a sugarcane cutter while working as an agricultural laborer. The dead had obstructed him, and she had made offensive statements about his honor. He attempted to proceed peacefully, but she moved to insult him in public, resulting in a grave and unexpected provocation, resulting in the stated occurrence. So, according to the learned counsel, the appellant’s offense does not come under section 302 of the IPC.

Without a doubt, there was a significant and abrupt provocation, but the accused should have used self-control simultaneously, according to the knowledgeable APP. The Learned APP has called the Judge’s attention to column no.17 of the post-mortem records, demonstrating that the dead had incurred as many as ten chop wounds. The esophagus and trachea were also seen cut due to the severity of the injuries. As a result, it is asked that the trial court’s decision will not be overturned.

After reviewing both the stances rules, the Learned Judge found that, Certainly, the assault resulted from a severe and unexpected provocation. Since the accused lacked self-control, he could not maintain constraint while committing the attack. It was not a planned attack. He was on his way to work and, as a result, had a sickle in his bag. The accused committed an offense that comes under Section 300, Exception 4.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

Officers are obligated to follow the orders of their superiors. The lawful Order of the superiors must be followed, disobedience of which could lead to suspension or inquiry against the officers. The High Court Of Bombay upheld this through the learned bench held by R. D. DHANUKA AND S. M. MODAK, JJ in the case of M/S. GLOBUS PETRO ADDITIONS PVT. LTD. V. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ( Civil Writ Petition No. 3298 Of 2021).

On February 2, 2019, the Petitioner applied to Respondent No. 3 for a GST refund. On 02/05/2019, the reimbursement application for Q2 was denied. The reimbursement application for Q3 was refused on May 1, 2019. The Petitioner filed an appeal with Respondent No. 2- Additional Commissioner on 02/08/2019, after being aggrieved by the Order denying those two petitions. Respondent No. 2 was happy to set aside Respondent No. 3’s instructions and approve the appeal on October 14, 2019. The Petitioner submitted the reimbursement claim before Respondent No. 3. The reimbursement claim for Q2 and Q3 was denied by Respondent No. 3 on November 14, 2019. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the Order mentioned above dated 14/11/2019 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune, on March 12, 2020.

It is also held that, after further investigation into the matter, the condition (b) of paragraph 3 of Circular No. 110/29/2019-GST dated 03/10/2019 that of refund application for a subsequent period did not appear to be fulfilled in respect of refund claim filed under the ‘Any Other’ category instead of the type under which Nil refund claim was filed. The applicant could not register a refund claim under the ‘Any Other’ category for July and September 2018 since they had already filed a refund claim for October and December 2018.

It is further held that the said Order in Appeal dated 14/10/2019 of the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax, Pune-II, being deemed erroneous, is to be appealed against before the GST Tribunal. As soon as it is formed, request to set aside the said Order in Appeal dated 14/10/2019 as being not legal and proper. To stay the operation of the said Order in Appeal dated 14/10/2019 and pass any other order deemed fit in the facts and circumstances.

Mr. Jitendra Mishra, experienced counsel for the Respondents, made a feeble attempt to defend the impugned Order by claiming that the department has decided to appeal the said Order by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) dated 14/10/2019 before the GST Tribunal, which has yet to be established.

The Learned Judge passed the petition based on the decision to challenge the said Order dated 14/10/2019 before the GST Tribunal, or based on the Assistant Commissioner’s dissent not to obey the said Order given by his Superior Authority, i.e., the Commissioner.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

 

 

With the Changing Land Policies, Compensation Must Be Increased per Hectare. The land compensation was increased from Rs.10,500 per hectare to Rs.50,000 per hectare by the Reference Court, which the High Court Of Bombay upheld.  The honorable judge ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J pronounced this judgment on 25.01.2022 in JAGRAM BALU JADHAO V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( First Appeal No.90 Of 2018 ).

Facts of this case – The appellants were the proprietors of land under Survey No.19/2 in village Mokh, Tq. Digras, Yavatmal District. The Acquiring Body (Respondent No.4) purchased the land mentioned above, which measures 6H 7R, to submerge the Arunavati Project. On the 23rd of January, 1986, the Notification under Section 4 was issued, and the Award was announced on the 3rd of August, 1988. The compensation was set at Rs.10,500 per hectare by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). The appellants filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act mentioned above after they were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation established by the LAO.

Shri. A. R. Chavhan, learned Advocate for the appellants, has relied on the judgment of this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 (Dattaram S/o Tatyaji Paul V. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), wherein this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) increased the compensation in respect of the land under The increase was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal Nos.5146-5147 of 2011. The appellants’ learned Advocate contends that the land under Survey No.93/4 is similar and near the relevant area. He further claims that the same Notification was used to purchase the land under Survey No.93/4 for the same reason.

This Court decided the compensation in respect of Survey No.93/4 at Rs.70,000/- per acre in a decision dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, according to Shri. M. A. Kadu learned Advocate for respondent no.4. He claims that the appellants in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 had their compensation increased by concealing that compensation for the same land had been set at Rs.70,000/- per hectare in First Appeal No.87 of 1996, a judgment dated 17.09.2010. As a result, he claims that the judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996 cannot be used to determine the market rate of the relevant land.

The Learned Judge ruled that the petition for increased compensation is primarily based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No.5146-5147 of 2011 and the ruling dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No.426 of 1996. The verdict in First Appeal No.426 of 1996, issued the 20th of February, 2009, concerns agricultural property in village Mokh under Survey No.93/4, which was also acquired by the same Notification. Dattaram Tatyaji Paul, the landowner, filed a Section 18 reference, LAC 193/1992, and the Reference Court, by order dated 15.09.1995, increased the compensation to Rs.90,000/- per hectare.

It is widely established that an order granting relief mistakenly or by mistake does not confer any legal right on others to get the same ease. A wrong that has been committed in the past cannot be repeated. “Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and anr. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81.” As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to further compensation based on the judgment in First Appeal No.426 of1996, which was acquired by overturning the prior decision in First Appeal No.87 of 1996.

The appeal is somewhat admissible in this situation. Compensation for land measuring 6H 7R from Survey No.19/2 of village Mokh has been increased from Rs.50,000/- per hectare to Rs.70,000/- per hectare, including interest from the date of admission of the appeal till ultimate realization. The respondent/Acquiring Body must deposit the increased compensation with interest as described above within four months.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

A relatively significant degree of mental agony and suffering inflicted by one person on another is mental trauma. If the mental trauma is caused by the loss of near and dear ones, the Court must consider the said circumstance. This was undoubtedly upheld in the High Court Of Bombay. The judgment was pronounced by the honorable Judges SJ KATHAWALLA & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ on 30.12.2021 in MRITUNJAY GHOSH S/O GOBIND GHOSH V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR (Writ Petition No. 6769 Of 2021).

While convicting Respondent No. 8, the learned Additional Sessions Judge stated categorically in point no.3 of the Conviction Order dated 3.11.2006 that the Petitioner and co-accused are entitled to set off under Section 428 CrPC for the time spent in custody regarding sentences of imprisonment imposed under Sections 394 and 449 read with section 34 of IPC. It was thus argued that, by implication, the Trial Court had not granted set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the time spent in custody for offenses under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC.

 Thus, Respondent No.8 is not entitled to the benefit under Section 428 CrPC concerning his conviction and imprisonment under Section 302, read with section 34 of IPC. Finally, the Petitioner’s Counsel requested this Court to remember the horrific character of Respondent No. 8’s cold-blooded murder of the Petitioner’s wife Lipika, aged 27 years, and son Pranay, four old years, on December 24, 2001. Respondent No.8 threatened the Petitioner after perpetrating the heinous crime of double murder, for which the Petitioner filed an NC with the DN Nagar Police Station on January 27, 2014.

The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a Report dated 29.12.2021 in respect of Respondent No.8 and the calculation and rationale for classifying Respondent No.8 under Category 4(e) of the Guidelines dated 15.03.2010. In calculating the total of 26 years, which is the period of imprisonment to be served by the Respondent No. 8, including remissions, under Category 4(e) of the Guidelines dated 15.03.2010, the Report (Nomination List) at Point No.15, sub-para (2) gives the benefit of 4 years, 10 months, and 29 days for the time spent by the Respondent No.8 in judicial custody during the trial.

The Learned Public Prosecutor argued that no intervention with the category is required, and hence the Petition must be rejected. Since the aforementioned Criminal Writ Petition addressed a significant legal matter, this Court found it appropriate to appoint Learned Counsel, Shri Pranav Badheka, as ‘amicus curiae’ to help the Court with the problems made in this Criminal Writ Petition.

It is clear from this Court’s Order in Criminal Writ Petition No.328 of 2015 that the classification and relevance of the Guidelines were upheld by this Court, which Order was not challenged further. Thus the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the categorization of Respondent No.8 under Category 4(e) and the applicability of the Guidelines of 2010 cannot be accepted. In reality, even if the 1992 Guidelines are applied, the duration of imprisonment for Respondent No.8 would be 26 years, including remission.

The Petitioner’s claim that the succeeding Guidelines of 2010 will not apply and that the 1992 Guidelines will take precedence is without substance. The Learned Amicus Curiae relied on an Apex Court ruling in the State of Haryana V. Jagdish to support this claim.

However, in this case, the Petitioner’s argument is pretty meaningless because, under both the 1992 and 2010 Guidelines, the period of imprisonment to be served, including remissions, by Respondent No. 8, subject to a minimum of 14 years actual imprisonment including set off period, is the same, namely 26 years.

Despite the foregoing arguments, this Court cannot be indifferent to the mental anguish experienced by the Petitioner after losing two of his closest friends in a brutal act committed by Respondent No. 8 and his co-accused and then being allegedly threatened by Respondent No. 8, for which the Petitioner had to file another NC, as previously stated. As a result, if the Petitioner is threatened by Respondent No. 8 in the future, or if he believes he is in imminent danger at the hands of Respondent No. 8, he shall be free to immediately approach the concerned police station for necessary action on his complaint, or to petition a court for appropriate action, depending on the facts at the time.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree