Blog - Page 309 of 1824

30 Aug

The standard of negatively affecting the “maintenance of public order” cannot be met by merely suspecting a violation of law and order. Gujarat High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #dentention, #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE: Dharmesh Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 19, 2023

12965 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-

The current petition is intended to challenge the detention order issued by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, section 3(1), by holding the petitioner-detenu, as that term is defined in section 2(c) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the detenue, the filing of three FIRs for violations of Sections 65(E), 116(b), 98(2), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(E), 116(b), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and Sections 65(E), 116(b), and Sections 65(A)(A) and 116(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act by themselves cannot bring the case within the ambit of the Unlawful activity that is likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the same time, learned advocate for the petitioner further argued that had any alleged illegal activity cannot be connected to or have anything to do with maintaining public order; at most, it can be considered a violation of law and order

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The respondent Considering the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority properly issued the order of detention, and the detention order deserves to be upheld. The State supported the detention order passed by the authority and argued that sufficient information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu, indicate that the detenu is in the habit of engaging in the activity as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Primarily, it is determined that the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid, and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of situation. PASA detention orders are frequently issued, relying on outdated information and failing to distinguish between “law and order” and “public order” issues as specified in the PASA Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

29 Aug

An argument with the judicial officer is not a ground for transfer of the case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Prime Legal

Blog

Raj Bala

Vs.

Rishabh Birla

2023:PHHC:110117

Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

DATE: 23.08.2023

FACTS:

The information derived from the revision petition outlines the following scenario: Respondents number 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs, filed a civil lawsuit with the intent of securing possession through specific performance, in addition to seeking a declaration and permanent injunction. This lawsuit was directed against the current petitioners and the nominal respondents number 3 and 4. One of the nominal respondents, number 3, submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). During the presentation of arguments, the present petitioners also requested an opportunity to present their arguments concerning this application. However, they claim that the Court denied them this opportunity. This denial raised concerns among the present petitioners about receiving a fair trial from the Court. It appears that there was a somewhat heated exchange of words as well. In light of these circumstances, the petitioners decided to file a transfer petition, which the District Judge of Gurugram dismissed. This dismissal prompted the submission of the current revision petition.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The judge did not identify any unlawfulness in the decision made by the District Judge in Gurugram. In fact, the decision is comprehensive and well-justified. It is important to consider that during arguments, emotions can occasionally escalate, although it may not be intentional. Nonetheless, this by itself cannot be sufficient grounds for any party to develop concerns that they won’t receive a fair ruling from the respective court. Conversely, it’s the duty of the presiding officers to ensure that their actions don’t contribute to such concerns. Simultaneously, members of the legal profession are also expected to maintain proper conduct within the courtroom.

Written by- Srijan Garg

29.9.2023(2)

29 Aug

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana lists the factors relating to grant of probation

Prime Legal

Blog

Nasri

Vs.

State of Haryana

Date of decision: 17.07.2023

CRM-A-38-MA-2017

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARJUN MONGA

FACT:

On June 27, 2012, around 6:00 pm, the person filing the complaint went to her empty piece of land to tie up her cattle. Aslam, the accused individual, obstructed her from doing so, leading to a confrontation. Subsequently, Yusuf, Aarif, Arshad, Ibri, Islam, Sajid, Kallu, Jubeda, Nasi, Sabroon, Sansida, and Asraf, armed with sticks and rods, forcibly entered the complainant’s residence and launched an attack on her. Nasri delivered a kick to her abdomen, while Jubeda used both her legs and fists to strike her. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant’s mother-in-law came to her rescue but was kicked in the stomach by Ashraf. Hearing the disturbance, Hari Singh and Sabir arrived at the scene, causing the accused individuals to flee while threatening the complainant’s life. At that moment, the complainant was four months pregnant. She was taken to a hospital where a medical examination revealed that her unborn child had died. The incident was only documented in a preliminary incident report (DDR) and no further action was taken on the matter.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

Based on the specifics and context of the situation, it is up to the court’s judgment to decide whether probation should be granted. The court will take into account all pertinent aspects and weigh the considerations of rehabilitation, safeguarding the public, and ensuring fairness when making this determination. The primary objective of probation is to present a substitute to imprisonment that attends to the personal requirements of the wrongdoer while still upholding public safety. By permitting conditional release through probation, the intention is to discourage subsequent criminal behavior, all the while affording a chance for the individual to transform and rehabilitate themselves.

Written by- Srijan Garg

29.08.2023(1)

29 Aug

Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence of 70-Year-Old Inmate on Death Row After 30 Years of Incarceration, Raises Concerns Over Unjustified Delay in Resolving Mercy Plea

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Saibanna s/o Ningappa Natikar AND The Union of India & Others

Case No: Writ Petition no. 3297 of 2013

Date of Order: 17-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G NARENDAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE C M POONACHA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has overturned the death sentence given to a 70-year-old individual convicted of murder. Instead, they have changed the punishment to life imprisonment. This decision comes after the person served 30 years in prison, during which almost 20 years were spent in isolation.

FACTS

In 1988, the petitioner turned himself in to the police, admitting that he had killed his wife, Malkawwa. He claimed he did so because she was having an affair with another man, which deeply disturbed him. He was arrested and taken into custody, where he met PW-1, Dattu, who offered his daughter’s hand in marriage once the petitioner was released.

In July 1988, the accused was granted bail and later married Nagamma, the daughter of PW-1. They had a child together. However, on February 2, 1993, the petitioner was found guilty and received a life imprisonment sentence. He was released on parole in August 1994 for one month.

On September 13, 1994, Nagamma and their daughter Vijayalakshmi were found murdered. The petitioner was discovered with serious injuries, including a severe head wound. After recovering from the injuries, he was arrested for the murders.

Despite the fact that Section 303 IPC had been declared unconstitutional by a Constitutional Bench in Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983), the trial court still convicted the petitioner under this section. He was sentenced to death.

The conviction was upheld by the High Court and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005. Subsequently, in 2005, the petitioner submitted a Mercy Petition, but it was mistakenly sent to the Union Government instead of the State Governor, who was the appropriate authority to consider it. The mercy petition wasn’t reviewed until January 2007 and was ultimately rejected in February 2007. Another mercy petition was submitted in the same month, which was also denied in 2013.

COURT’S JUDGEMENT

Upon reviewing the records, the court found multiple instances of unexplained delays in the process of considering the petitioner’s mercy petition. These delays were attributed to various governmental bodies, including the State Government, the Governor’s Secretariat, and the Karnataka government. The court calculated a cumulative delay of over 7 years and 8 months in the consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s mercy petition. This prolonged delay was deemed to have violated the petitioner’s rights and justified their request for a commutation of the death sentence. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had been held in solitary confinement for around 16 years and was suffering from physical and psychological issues due to this confinement. Consequently, the court partially granted the petitioner’s plea.

A panel consisting of Justice G Narendar and Justice C M Poonacha has granted approval to the legal request submitted by Saibanna Ningappa Natikar on two main grounds. These grounds include an extensive delay of 7 years and 8 months in addressing his plea for clemency and his unjustified confinement in isolation, which lacked legal authorization.

The panel stated that after evaluating all the details and circumstances, especially considering the petitioner’s enduring imprisonment of over 30 years, justice would be better served by altering the initially given death penalty to a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner is also granted the freedom to submit a request for remission at their discretion.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

29 Aug

Karnataka High Court Rules Railway Claims Tribunal Lacks Authority to Penalize Individuals for Failure to Honor Its Award

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Union of India v. Malini & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2017

Date of Order: 31-07-2023

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not authorized to penalize individuals who fail to comply with its directives to provide compensation to claimants.

FACTS

In response to Malini’s claim petition, the tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 according to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The petitioner, Union of India, was instructed to provide the compensation within 30 days.

As the petitioner failed to comply with the payment, the tribunal initiated actions and sent a notice to explain the situation.

The petitioner argued that once the tribunal issues an order, it becomes functus officio and lacks the authority to impose contempt charges. They contended that the tribunal is authorized to consider an execution request to carry out its order. Therefore, the issuance of a show-cause notice to the General Manager was considered to be beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Additionally, they informed that the petitioner has now paid the complete compensation along with interest as directed by the tribunal. Hence, they requested the tribunal to terminate the proceedings.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court concurred with the petitioner’s argument and stated that according to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Tribunal lacks the authority to impose penalties on individuals who disregard its rulings. Once the Tribunal concludes a case, it relinquishes jurisdiction over the matter and becomes legally ineffective (“functus officio”), in contrast to a Civil Court, which retains the power to penalize for non-compliance with its directives. The court further emphasized that the responsibility to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act lies with the claimant, and the Tribunal itself is not authorized to take action for non-adherence to its rulings.

Recognizing that the petitioner has already fulfilled the compensation obligation along with accrued interest, the court concluded that it is appropriate to conclude the proceedings before the Tribunal that were initiated based on the respondents’ application dated 07.11.2016.

A petition by the Union of India was granted by Justice R Nataraj, a sole judge on the bench. The 2017 order from the Tribunal, which had demanded an explanation from the General Manager of South Western Railway for not following the Tribunal’s directive and potentially facing consequences, was invalidated.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

1 … 307 308 309 310 311 … 1,824