On 5th April 2023, the single judge bench of Justice Raj Chattopadhyay of High Court of Calcutta quashed criminal proceedings in a private complaint alleging offences under sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. State of West Bengal (C.R.R No. 48 of 2016)

Facts of the Case:

In 2014, the complainant had applied for two connections of Airtel Broadband through two agents. It was alleged that the agenda assured him that a ‘customer relationship’ form would be sent to him. It was further alleged that he was promised of attaining a rental discount of Rs.300 per month, but the same was never provided.  It was further stated by the complainant that the form and the bill would contain his forged signature. Thus, the offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy were alleged to have been committed by all four accused persons including Mittal. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and observed that a prime facie case was mad out against all four accused and further directed issuance of process against all of them. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Judgment:

The Court observed that it is settled law that the code does not contemplate any vicarious liability of any party who is not charged directly for the commission of an offence, except for some provisions when provided for. It was further observed that in the current case, neither cognizable offences had been disclosed in the complaint nor the allegations against them as made in the complaint when taken even on their face value have made out any prosecutable case. The Court opined that a person ought not to be dragged into court merely because the complaint has been filed. That the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in section 204 Cr.P.C are of immense importance. That, the said words amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is a sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. Hence, cognizance of offence taken against the petitioners and the issuance of process against them by the trial court suffered from gross illegality. The Court conclusively quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. 

Click here to view the judgment

“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 falls into the category of the 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”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN

On the 28th of March, 2023 the Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao at Calcutta HC, denied granting Probate of Will that was attested by the Witness, 2 days prior to Execution by the Testator in a Petition put forward by Mr. Chandan Kumar Lal (PLA 426 of 2019)

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner had filed the application for the purpose of grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the Testator, Buddhadev Bose. The Testator executed his last Will and Testament on 24th October 2013 by appointing the petitioner as Executrix of his last Will. The Testator died on 30th July 2019. As per the Will, the testator executed the Will on 24th October 2013, but one of the attesting witnesses had put the date in the said Will as 22nd October 2013.  The Will is a registered Will and the date of registration is also 24th October 2013. In the Will, there are two attesting witnesses but the petitioner has examined only one witness and the date of signature of the witness in the will is different from the date of execution of the Will by the testator and also the date of registration.  

Judgment:

The Court opined that to be an attesting witness, it is essential that the witness should have put his signature for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from a personal knowledge of his signature. If a person put his signature on the document for some other purpose, he is not an attesting witness.  In the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that the testator executed the Will on 24th October 2013 but as per Will and the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses signed the Will on 22nd October 2013. At the time of examination of the attesting witness, he also clarified that the date is correct. The other attesting witness was not examined.  In view of the above, the Court held that the petitioner did not prove the Will, and hence, the probate of the will was denied. 

Click here to view the judgment

“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 falls into the category of the 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”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN

In the 1990 case R v. Sparrow, The Supreme Court of Canada made a significant ruling in 1 S.C.R. 1075 about the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982. 

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

Using a drift net that was 20 fathom longer than what was allowed under the Musqueam Band’s fishing license under the Fisheries Act of 1985, Ronald Edward Sparrow was captured fishing. Sparrow acknowledged all of the charges’ facts but defended himself by claiming that he was simply practicing his constitutionally protected right to fish as an aboriginal under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.

At trial, the judge concluded that there was no inherent right to fish and that only treaty rights that already existed were protected by section 35. There was insufficient evidence to support the defense, thus an appeal to the County Court and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal were both rejected.

JUDGEMENT : 

Justice Gérard La Forest and Chief Justice Brian Dickson delivered the court’s unanimous decision. They said Sparrow was exercising an “inherent” Aboriginal right that was granted and protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and that predated provincial legislation. They explained how section 35’s terms should be understood.(1).

The court determined that because of the government’s fiduciary responsibility to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, Aboriginal rights, including the right to fish, that existed in 1982 are protected under the Canadian Constitution and cannot be violated without cause.

JUDGMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY. 

The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act was the subject of a significant Supreme Court of Canada reference titled Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486, which raised important legal issues. By establishing a fault component for all offenses with legal repercussions, the decision created one of the earliest basic justice concepts in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”), beyond merely natural justice. 

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

Driving when your license is suspended is an absolute liability infraction under Section 94(2) of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act. Regardless of whether the motorist was aware of the ban, the Crown just needed to prove that they were driving in order to secure a conviction. A successful conviction entailed a minimum seven-day sentence in jail.

According to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Act violated a basic fairness principle under section 7 of the Charter.

JUDGMENT : 

The principles of fundamental justice are violated, according to Lamer J., writing for a unanimous court, when someone has absolute accountability for an offense regardless of whether they took any steps to avoid being at blame. The Charter is violated if there is a chance that someone could be deprived of their life, liberty, or personal security as a result of an absolute liability infraction. Except in extraordinary circumstances, section 1 of the Charter cannot be used to defend a statute that contradicts section 7. (for example, natural disasters, outbreaks of war, epidemics). 

The fundamental justice principles apply a more stringent standard than section 1 does. Therefore, section 1 is unlikely to protect any law that contravenes the fundamental justice standards.

The ruling also established basic justice as more than a procedural right akin to due process; it also protects substantive rights, even though these rights ran opposite to the original drafters of the Charter. This case was significant and contentious in this regard.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.