It should be noted that, in the case of murder, the accused kill one or two people, while the persons dealing with drugs are towers to death or blow the lives of innocent young people who are vulnerable: they have deleterious effects and deadly effects on society, they are a danger to society, even when temporarily released. Reason can be a major stake and involve illegal profit, was referred by Justice T.Vinod Kumar from the Telangana High Court in the matter of Dharavath Aravind versus State of Telangana [CRIMINAL PETITION No.6468 of 2020]

This order was passed for the facts where the learned counsel for petitioner particular petitioner No.1 is a vehicle owner and driver who was transported by contraband substance (cannabis) after the vehicle was rented by accused No.4, while the petitioner No.2 only came into car to give the petitioner/A-1 company during their trip from East Godavari to Hyderabad. Learned Counsel, however, tried to urge regular bail for humanitarian reasons by stating that petitioner No.1 is his family’s only breadwinner and his livelihood is being provided by hiring the car, agreed to carry a parcel weighing approximately 43 kg, on the request of the accused No. 4 for having been delivered to his destination.

Furthermore, a learned counsel would argue that there is no record previously of involvement of petitioners in similar offences. It is also argued that there is no material to link petitioners with the offence except for the declaration that the investigating agency has been made confessional. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioners could be granted bail because all the witnesses have been examined and because their declarations have been recorded by the investigating authorities. The learned lawyer relies on the orders of this court’s coordinating bench in Crl.P. No. 6634, 2020, in support of his submissions.

The additional learned public prosecutor would further argue that the criminal investigation is underway and that six witnesses have been examined as of today. The learned supplementary public prosecutor further states that the co-accused No. A.3 and A.4 are still abstaining from the above crime and FSL is also awaiting the report. Furthermore, according to the confessional declaration given by the petitioners to the investigating authority in the RE, the learned Additional Public Public Prosecutor would submit that in the retention report it would be clear that the petitioners involved themselves in the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act to make more money easily by secretly transport the ganja, hence the claim.

For the rest of the apprenticed lawyer’s submission for the petitioners on non-compliance by the obligatory requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned public prosecution would argue that such measures were not attracted, since the petitioner was not searched for personally and the offending substance was detected during the search in the vehicle. The learned public prosecutor relied on an Apex court judgement in the Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors in support of the above presentation.

This Court, having taken due account of the presentations made as above, must first determine whether a reasonable ground for granting a bail exists and in view of the law established by the Apex Court. The use of the expression “reasonable grounds” within the framework of the non-obstante clause in which Article 38 of the NDPS Act implies that it is not only a prima facie case but also something more. The petitioners were found in the circumstances of this case to have the prohibited substance (narcotics) while carrying them.

Consequently, the bail petition has no merit and, if advised, has been rejected, reserving the petitioner the freedom to file a new petition in a suitable phase according to the law. The above remarks are not to be taken as an opinion on the merits but only for the purposes of awarding the immediate bail petition.

Click here to read the full judgement

Rape is a violation of the victim’s body, mind and personal privacy, is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society. Rape reduces a woman to an animal because the core of her life is being shaken. A rape victim cannot be called an accomplice by any means. Rape leaves the victim’s life with a lasting scar. This turns extreme when it’s done with the consent of the prosecutrix on the misconception of facts, was mentioned by Justice T.Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court in the matter of Kotnaka Maheshwer versus State of Telangana [CRIMINAL PETITION No.7085 of 2020]

The following order was passed where the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, as the applicant and the defacto complainant maintained a consensual sexual relationship for over two years, that Section 376 IPC provisions were not drawn to the facts of the present case. Learned A counsel for the petitioner further submits that, since the relationship is consensual, the same will not fall within the competence of Section 420 IPC, although the promise of marriage does not apply since, from the beginning of the 2018 relationship, the petitioner was never intended to cheat or dishonestly induce a defacto complainant to enter into sexual relations. In recent times, the petitioner was unable to marry the complainant because of certain differences between the petitioner, his family and the de facto plaintiff. A learned counsel to the petitioner would further argue that since 12.11.2020 the petitioner has been in legal custody and is facing reputation loss in society. Therefore he prays for regular bail.

The learning Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner had sexual relations with the petitioner for some time on the promise of marrying the defacto-competitive, and now supports his promise to marry. The petitioner had been continuous physical use of the defacto complainant for over two years on the promise of the marriage of the defacto complainant and has now rejected the defacto complainant, and on 28.10.2020 the defacto complainant approached the respondent’s authority and lodged the present complaint. The learned prosecutor would further submit that eight witnesses had been examined and the investigation was underway today, and 164 Cr.P.C. Statements on the issue must be recorded by the authorities. Additional Public Prosecutor learned would also state that since the investigation is being conducted in advance, the petitioner may be granted any bail to alter the evidence and also influence the witnesses.

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh wherein it has been observed that- 

“But for the false promise by the accused to marry the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix would not have given the consent to have the physical relationship. It was a clear case of cheating and deception.” 

The court held after hearing both sides that the pleader, after being physically exploited for over two years by the petitioner, would only show that the petitioner had physical connections with the defacto complainant on a false promise of marriage, who had consented to have sexually abused under misunderstood fact and promise of marriage; The facts of this case clearly attracts attention to the principles set out in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Soni. In view of this, this Court does not consider the petitioner to be granted a legitimate reason or reason for granting a regular bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Click here to read the full judgement

Although guest faculty are employed on a temporary basis, they still have the right to not be replaced by fresh guest faculty unless there have been serious shortcomings in their services. This was upheld by single-member bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Honorable Justice Sam Koshy in the case of Khorin Markam v State of Chhatthisgarh [WPS No. 2807 of 2021] on 23^rd June 2021.

The petitioner, Miss Khorin Markam was working as a Guest lecturer for sociology at Government Naveen College Bhairamgarh in Chhatisgarh for the year 2020-21. The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that she went through a rigorous selection process to be appointed as a guest lecturer, was always competent in her role and never had any complaints against her performance. For this reason she contended that the respondents should not be permitted to replace her with new guest lecturers now that the academic year was finished. The petitioner’s counsel cited the case of Manju Gupta & others v State of Chhattisgarh [WPS No. 4406/2016] where the court held that  “True it is, that the Petitioners’ status is that of a Guest Lecturer but that does not mean that they do not have any right. There is always a legitimate expectation of the Petitioners that since the filling up of the posts has not been initiated by way of a regular appointment or by contractual appointments; the Petitioners would be permitted to continue”. The respondents argued that the matter was premature since no harm had been caused to the petitioner yet and so the petition should be rejected outright.

The High Court noted that it was inclined to accept the same analogy as in the case cited by the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner’s rights need to be protected. Honorable Justice Sam Koshy concluded that “unless there is any complaint received against the performance of the petitioner, the respondents are restrained from going in for any fresh recruitment of a Guest Lecturer for the said subject under the respondent No.3-college against which the petitioner was engaged”. It was also added however, that “This would not preclude the State Government from going in for filling up of the post by way of a regular appointment or by way of engaging contractual teachers under the rules for contractual employment”.

Click here for the judgement

When a resolution plan has been approved by a committee of creditors, it is binding on the guarantor and he cannot escape his obligations outlined in the plan. This was addressed in the case of Gouri Prasad Goenka v State Bank of India [WPO No. 171 of 2021] which was adjudged on 21^st June 2021 by a bench consisting of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court.

The petitioner, Gouri Prasad Goenka is the Director and Promoter of Duncan Industries, additionally he was also the Guarantor for a loans taken by Duncan Industries from State Bank of India. Upon default of the payement, the petitioner was issued two show cause notices from SBI asking him for a reason why he should not be declared a wilful defaulter.  One notice was addressed to him in his capacity as director of Duncan Industries and the other notice in his capacity as the guarantor. The petitioner contended that an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed over the company from March 2020 and the power of its board of directors stood suspended in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A moratorium was also declared under section 14 of the IBP prohibiting suits or proceedings against the debtor. As a result of this, the petitioner contended that wilful defaulter proceedings should not be instituted against the director of the company.

The respondents countered that as per the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Hindustan National Glass & Industries limited [(2013) 7 SCC 369] judgement, a wilful defaulter proceeding was meant to disseminate credit information and not for the recovery of property. Hence the moratorium cannot debar the proceeding for declaration of wilful defaulter. The court noted that it is evident that there lies no flaws in the notices and that the petitioner was given adequate oppurtunities to submit a suitable response asper Clause 2.6 of the RBI Master Circular. It was also noted that apphrehension of a future resolution plan which is yet to materialise cannot absolve the petitioner in his capacity of either director or guarantor from the liability incurred.

The High declared that “Essar Steel, in paragraph no. 105 thereof, stipulates that the guarantor cannot escape payment, as the Resolution Plan itself may so provide, although a successful resolution applicant starts on a fresh slate after such resolution, as indicated in paragraph no.107 of the said report”.  It was concluded that “In view of the above discussions, no fault can be found with the issuance of the impugned show-cause notices to justify judicial interference therewith. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the respondent will be free to take subsequent steps in respect of the wilful declaration proceeding in accordance with law”.

Click here for the judgement

A civil revision petition filed under Order VI rule 17 seeking to amend the plaint does not dismiss the petition and the nature remains unaltered. This was upheld by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.D Jagadish Chandirawhere he said, “This Court is of the opinion that by amending the plaint, the nature of the suit will not be altered. However, the respondents/defendants have to be given an opportunity to file additional written statement” in Prabavathi V. R. Raghu [CRP(PD)No.3867 of 2016].

The brief facts of the case are, the plaintiff filed a suit to get a permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent him from interfering the plaintiff’s enjoyment and possession of the suit property. The defendants filed a counter suit claiming that the plaintiff had filed a vexatious suit to defeat the right of the defendants. At this stage, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking to amend the plaint stating that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants had trespassed into the property. However, the trial judge dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of evidence to support the trespass. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner can submit evidence in support of his claim of trespass and the trial judge had wrongly dismissed the petition and asks the court to set aside the order of the trial court and permit the petitioner to amend the plaint.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff has falsely accused the defendants of trespass and the order of the trial judge was right. They also claimed that the petition was an abuse of process of law to delay the proceedings. After listening to both the counsels, the learned judge decreed that, “The petition seeking to amend the plaint has been filed, even before the commencement of trial. The petitioner had paid necessary Court fee. Even if the petitioner had not been in possession earlier, when the suit for declaration has been filed, the consequential prayer would have to seek for recovery of possession. This Court is of the opinion that by amending the plaint, the nature of the suit will not be altered. However, the respondents/defendants have to be given an opportunity to file additional written statement and the petitioner/plaintiff is bound to prove that the respondents/defendants trespassed into the property on 08.05.2016 by letting in evidence” thus allowing the petition.

Click here to read the judgement.