Blog Archives - Page 172 of 1660

6 Nov

The High Court of Karnataka discarded the matter to quash the case against the previous Taralabalu Kendra secretary for stockpiling pistols on the house of worship premises – Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Introduction

Recently the High Court of Karnataka situated at Bangalore had declined to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the previous secretary of Taralabalu Kendra for having ownership of a pistol equipped at the address of the Kendra and for keeping the firearm in the premises of the Kendra, Which is a house of Worship.

Facts of the case

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings

It is alleged by the informant, that the petitioner was being previous Secretary staying in the Kendra, was possessing a pistol since 2017 by furnishing the address of the Taralabalu Kendra, and had kept the pistol in the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution, by possessing and preserving pistol in the premises which are prohibited and are an offense under Section 3(c) and 4 of 4 the Act which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Keeping a pistol is prohibited in this religious institution. A notice was issued to the petitioner.

petitioner has strenuously contended that there was a dispute between the senior pontiff and junior pontiff due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

further contended, that the petitioner obtained the license for possession of the pistol. Accordingly, the police verified the spot where he had given the address of the Mutt. Thereafter, a report has been sent by the RT Nagar police. Accordingly, the license has been granted, as per the Arms Act. If a license was given to an address, he must keep the arms at the address given by the police under a safe locker and if he removes the arms, without the knowledge of the police, it will be an offence under the Arms Act 1959.

as per Rule 10 of the Arms Rule 2016, the prescribed form is provided the place has been identified and a license is given. Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner violated any law and in accordance with the Arms Act, he owns and the address given to the police has been identified as the place of depositing the pistol. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot shift the place of a safe locker, which will be an offense under the Arms Act.

Analysis of the court

The court pointed out that the petitioner’s ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse, and the possession of a pistol was indeed prohibited under the Act. If at all the petitioner claims he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but ‘the ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but ‘the ignorance of the law is not an excuse’ to the petitioner and the petitioner already committed the offense under Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of the 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

Kaulav Roy chowdhury

view the judgement

6 Nov

The Compensation Rate Has To Be Evaluated Fairly Considering The Nature Of The Land, If Land Is Taken Under NHAI Act: High Court Of Allahabad

Prime Legal

blog #compensation, #Dispute, #Highway, #land, #Roads

Title: Chandra Kishori v Union Of India

Citation: Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. – 55 And 56 Of 2022

Coram: Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Decided On: 16.10.2023

Introduction:

Here both the appeals involve a common question of law and fact, hence both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the Court referred to the facts as they emerge from Appeal No. 55 of 2022, however, the relevant facts relating to the other appeal was also considered at the appropriate place.

Facts:

The appellant, of the two appeals, are the land owners, whose land was acquired under the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 under Sections 3 A & 3 D of the NHAI Act, 1956. The land of appellants of both the appeals were made the subject matter of notification issued under Section 3-A of the NHAI Act, 1956 dated 28.05.2012 and notification under Section 3-D was made on 15.3.2013 for widening of Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway from km. 35.670 to 64.100. The competent authority passed its award in terms of Section 3-G of the NHAI Act, 1956 and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,98,923 to Chandra Kishori vide award dated 11.7.2016 and a sum of Rs. 6,18,051/- to Om Prakash vide award dated 31.07.2015.

Being aggrieved both Chandra Kishori and Om Prakash escalated the matter by invoking the provisions of Section 3-G (5) and (6) and referred the matter for arbitration. The Arbitrator in terms of his award dated 19.9.2019 passed in Case No. 1689 of 2017 relating to Chandra Kishori and in Case No. 1690 of 2017 relating to Om Prakash did not find favour with the contentions of the appellant, of the two appeals, for enhancement of compensation and consequently, rejected their claim.

The award passed was further challenged by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Barabanki. Both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 relating to both the appellant in the respective appeals, was rejected by the Additional District Judge.

The counsel for appellants in the two appeals has primarily raised two points for consideration. It is submitted that in the case of both the appellants the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the competent authority had given the compensation treating it to be agricultural land. It is urged that once the land was declared as non-agricultural, the appellants were entitled to get compensation on the rates as applicable to non-agricultural land.

learned counsel appearing for National Highway Authority of India through video conferencing has submitted that mere change in the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural is not going to confer any benefit to the appellants inasmuch as on the date of acquisition the nature of the land as it stood on the revenue records, has to be seen. It is further submitted that even though the appellants may have got the land declared for non-agricultural purposes yet there was no material on record to suggest that any non-agricultural activities were being done.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In the present case the court decided that the Arbitrator committed an error in failing to consider this aspect of the matter relating to the nature and status of land on the date of notification including ignoring the order passed by the SDM under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and it was the duty of the Arbitrator to have noticed the provisions and the manner in which the compensation is to be computed so that the land which has been taken away of the appellants, and they are directed to be appropriately compensated as per the provisions of law.

It was further found out that the Additional District Judge while considering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 also erred in holding that it does not have the power to interfere with the award which requires re-calculation as it is apparent that the Additional District Judge did not apply the settled legal principles applicable and defining the realm of jurisdiction, the Court exercises, while adjudicating a petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

“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 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: Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view the judgment

6 Nov

Court Allows The 90 Years Old Mother Residing With Her Son, To Meet Her Daughter On Her Request: High Court Of Delhi

Prime Legal

blog #Good will, #Judiciary, #Old mom, #Parenthood, #parents

Title: Seema v State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors.

Citation: W.P.(CRL) 3218/2023

Decided on: 02.11.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that her mother Smt.Rameshwari Devi was residing with her and after one week, i.e. on 12.10.2022, the respondent i.e. the brother of the petitioner came to the house of the petitioner and took her with him to his residence on the assurance that he would bring her back after some days. Therefore, a present petition has been filed seeking directions against the respondent to produce the mother of the petitioner namely Smt.Rameshwari Devi.

Facts:

Inspector Arjun Singh of Police Station Krishna Nagar appears with Mr.Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Delhi Police, and submits that he had visited the house of the brother of the petitioner i.e. respondent, and upon his interaction with the mother of the petitioner, he found that the mother is staying comfortably and willingly with respondent. He also submits that she stated that her son takes good care of her. The petitioner who is present in Court with her counsel states that her mother is 90 years old and she just wants to meet her once.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Court has no power to direct the mother to meet the petitioner, however, since she is a daughter and considering that the mother has not said anything against her and has also not denied meeting her. The court gave the direction to the Inspector that he shall take the petitioner to the house of her brother on 03.11.2023, where her mother is residing, at 4 pm for 10 minutes to meet her mother. The inspector shall be accompanied by one lady police officer at the said residence and the said officer shall ensure that the petitioner maintains a congenial atmosphere and meets her mother peacefully.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

6 Nov

First-Time Offender’s Sentence Reduced Due to Commitment to Reform and Lower Socio-Economic Status: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #delhi, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Mohd Nasim vs. The State

Citation: CRL.REV.P.296/2017

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Decided on: 3-11-2023

Introduction:

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with section 482 of the same Code. This legal action aims to challenge and set aside three specific legal orders and judgments: The order dated 27.03.2017, referred to as “the impugned order,” issued by the District and Sessions Judge of East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the appellate court”). The judgment dated 17.03.2016, referred to as “the impugned judgment.” The order on sentence dated 15.07.2016, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the trial court”).These orders and judgments pertain to a criminal case that arose from the FIR numbered 151/2009, registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur. The purpose of this criminal revision petition is to seek a review and potentially set aside these legal decisions.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The case pertains to an incident in 2009, where a road accident occurred involving a rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus with the registration number DL 1PB 9786 (referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The Investigating Officer, SI Yad Ram, arrived at the accident scene after receiving information about the incident. A statement from the complainant, Mohd. Sabir was recorded, in which he described that the rickshaw he was travelling in was hit from behind by the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

As a result of the collision, the deceased, Mahesh, fell on the road, and the rear tire of the bus ran over him, causing injuries that led to his subsequent death during treatment. An FIR was registered based on the statement of the complainant, initially under sections 279/337 IPC, and later section 304A IPC was added due to the death of the deceased. The petitioner, identified as Mohd. Nasim was charged as the driver of the offending bus. The trial court conducted proceedings, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including 11 witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed false implication during his statement.

The trial court, in its judgment, convicted the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A IPC and imposed sentences, including imprisonment and compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also sentenced for an offence under section 279 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The Court concluded that, The present First Information Report (FIR) dates back to 2009, and the petitioner has been involved in legal and judicial proceedings related to this FIR since then. The petitioner is described as a first-time offender with a clear criminal record. They belong to a lower socio-economic stratum and are the primary provider for their elderly parents. The legal heirs of the deceased in this case have already received compensation. The petitioner has expressed a commitment to reform themselves. The petitioner’s actions, characterized as rash and negligent driving, led to the untimely death of a young man. This incident caused irreparable loss to the victim’s family.

After considering all the facts, the court has decided that justice would be served by reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to simple imprisonment for six months. The remaining part of the sentence, as specified in the order on sentencing dated 15.07.2016, is to be maintained. The court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023 at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The judgment is to be provided to the petitioner and sent to the relevant trial court for their information.

The present petition, along with any pending applications, has been decided and disposed of accordingly.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgements

6 Nov

Justice Prevails as Court Compensates Widow for Delayed Pension and Denounces Official Negligence: High Court of Patna

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost, #patna, #pension

Title: Jaymanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & ORS.

Citation: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No:6338 of 2023

Coram: HONA’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Decided on: 04-10-23

Introduction:

It mentions the individuals who are involved or present in the case: Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, who is identified as the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, identified as “GP 4,” along with Mr. Manoj Kumar (referred to as “AC to GP 4”). Mrs. Ritika Rani, who is noted as the learned counsel for the Accountant General (Bihar). It is a civil Writ Petition.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The learned counsel representing respondent numbers 2 and 9 has filed a second supplementary statement of facts on their behalf in the court. The petitioner, represented by another counsel, has informed the court that there has been a delay of 15 years in the payment of retiral dues, including family pension. The petitioner’s husband passed away in 2008 while he was serving as a Chawkidar.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that pension is not a privilege but a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claim that the petitioner is entitled to compensation and interest, as per legal precedents, for the delay in receiving pension and other retiral dues, starting from the date of entitlement to the date of payment.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The petitioner, who is already receiving a family pension and has had some retiral dues paid, has faced a significant delay in the process, and this has caused considerable hardship to her as a widow and an illiterate individual. The court has expressed strong disapproval of the callous attitude of State Government officials, particularly the Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, and District Magistrate, in handling the petitioner’s case. In response to this, the District Magistrate has been directed by the court to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) in addition to the interest, based on legal precedents provided in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 and D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli (2014) 8 SCC 894.

The court has given a timeframe for the authority concerned to carry out this compensation, which is within four weeks from the date of passing the order. With these observations and directions, the writ petition in this case has been disposed of. This implies that the court has concluded its proceedings in this matter based on the provided judgment.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 … 170 171 172 173 174 … 1,660