Uncategorized Archives - Page 18 of 72

31 Oct

The Meghalaya High Court has clarified that Section 23 of the POCSO Act holds individuals responsible for revealing a minor’s identity when reporting or contributing to news.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Supreme Court, #primelegal, #writ, #writpetition, bail

Title: Shri Eric Ranee & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr

Decided on: 06.10.2023

Writ C No. – 79 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Three petitioners contested their participation as co-accused in a case involving the disclosure of a child victim’s identity in violation of the POCSO Act in the Meghalaya High Court’s case Crl. Petn. No. 79 of 2023. They contended that they were exempt from liability under Section 23(3) of the POCSO Act because they were social workers and media correspondents.

After weighing their arguments, the court maintained their criminal liability, ruling that news reporters and contributors are covered by Section 23 of the POCSO Act. The case pertained to the construal and implementation of child protection statutes concerning the revelation of victims’ identities in the press.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Meghalaya High Court decided in Crl. Petn. No. 79 of 2023 that three petitioners might face criminal charges under the POCSO Act for their roles in revealing a child victim’s identity to the media. Their claim that they were exempt from liability because they weren’t employed by the relevant newspapers was denied by the court. The case made clear how crucial it is to shield child abuse victims’ identities from the public eye.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court stressed how crucial it is to preserve the identity of minors who have been sexually abused by interpreting Section 23 of the POCSO Act to include news reporters and contributors. The need to protect the identities of child victims and the legal and moral obligations of news reporters are highlighted by this case.

“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- Kusuma R

Meghalaya Hc (4)

31 Oct

In an NDPS case, the High Court has granted bail owing to a 10-gram discrepancy in the inventory of seized charas: Bombay High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Writ Petition, #appeal, #dismissed, #writ, Prime Legal

Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra

Decided on: OCTOBER 23, 2023

Writ C No. – Bail Application NO. 1450 OF 2023

CORAM: M. S. Karnik, J

INTRODUCTION

Sunil Shishupal Nayak requested bail in this case in order to face charges under sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. There was a discrepancy in Charas possession in this case. The applicant claimed that drying caused a weight change after being arrested with one kilogram and ten grams of Charas. The NDPS Act’s provisions and the significance of the weight disparity were the deciding factors in the court’s decision regarding the bail application.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a case filed on April 16, 2022, Sunil Shishupal Nayak was charged under the NDPS Act for having a large quantity of “Charas.” A weight disparity surfaced during the legal proceedings; at first, Nayak was discovered in possession of 1 kg and 10 grams of Charas, which were deemed to be commercial quantities; however, the recorded weight was only 1 kg following a 59-day drying period. The charges and penalties in the case were contingent upon Charas’s legal classification. Nayak requested bail, which would have affected his freedom to stand trial.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court granted bail to Sunil Shishupal Nayak, who was charged under the NDPS Act in connection with a “Charas” possession case involving a weight discrepancy, was granted bail by the court. The court declined to make any pretrial rulings, emphasizing that matters pertaining to the weight of the contraband should be resolved during the trial. The results of the investigation, Nayak’s prolonged detention, and his lack of previous criminal history all played a role in the decision. Conditions attached to bail were put in place to make sure he cooperated with the court system.

Written by- Kusuma R

Bombay Hc

30 Oct

Parking Of Motor Vehicles On Road Without Taking Proper Precautions Is Prohibited: High Court Of Karnataka

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Contributory Negligence, #Negligence, #RoadSafety, #Truck

Citation: MFA No. 200227 of 2020

Introduction:

This application is Challenging order dated 12.11.2019 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi. as per order dated 28.01.2021, there was confinement of grounds in appeal and only challenge was with regard contributory negligence.

Facts:

as per claimant on 25.11.2014, Sadique Hussain was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-13/AS-6612 on Solapur – Vijayapur road. Tractor bearing no.MH 13/BR-1486 attached with two trailers bearing registration no.MH-13/T-7019 and MH-13/T-7020 parked on road without any indicator or any other precautions that too during night. Rider of motorcycle was not able to notice same and dashed against tractor-trailer leading to his death. Claiming compensation, claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act was filed against owner and insurer of tractor respectively.

On service of notice and entering appearence, respondents opposed claim petition on all grounds. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. On consideration tribunal held that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent parking of tractor- trailer on road and that claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.8,74,000/- and also held respondents are liable to pay same.

Merely on ground that tractor-trailers were parked on road, negligence cannot be apportioned against driver of tractor-trailer, unless there was specific proof that accident occurred despite deceased taking sufficient care and caution while riding. Hence no interference was called for. From above submission, and since only insurer is in appeal, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether finding of tribunal on contributory negligence and liability calls for interference?”

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

Court observed As per Regulation 15(1) of Road Regulation 1989, parking of motor vehicles on road without taking proper precautions is prohibited. Moreover, accident occurred on national highway, wherein vehicle ply in high speed. Such being case, without specific evidence regarding precautionary measures such as switching on of indicators, parking lights and placing barricades etc. by driver of tractor-trailer, tribunal would be justified in holding entire negligence against him and absolving negligence against rider of motorcycle.

Even insofar as apportionment of liability, admittedly, trailers are towed by tractor and cannot move by themselves. While passing impugned award tribunal has taken note of said aspect and held insurer of tractor liable to pay entire compensation. Same would be in accordance with law. No good or sufficient reasons are made out to interfere with the impugned award.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

30 Oct

If Procedure Provided Under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Is Not Followed By JMFC While Issuing Proclamation Order, The Order Is Liable To Be Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: SANJAY ASATI & UPENDRA KHARE @ KALLU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & SATENDRA SINGH

Decided on: 26th October 2023

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39110 of 2023

Coram: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL

Introduction

Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, as the issuance of proclamation against the petitioners was not in procedure under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

Facts of the case

The petitioners are accused in an FIR registered at Police Station Bhagwa, Chhatarpur, for commission of offence under Sections 306 & 34 of IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bada Malhara has issued a proclamation order against them whereby they have been directed to appear before it on 25.8.2023, otherwise they would be declared as “proclaimed offender”. Criticizing the issuance of proclamation order passed by JMFC, a petition was filed by the petitioners.

Court Analysis and Decision

Court observed it was prima facie apparent that the trial Court failed to pass the order in consonance to the procedure prescribed in the Code. Clearly the Magistrate had passed the order with apparent error on the face of record and the aspect relating to 30 days time is totally absent. Therefore, as apparent on the face of record that the procedure provided in Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been duly followed, the Court with no other option has set aside the order passed by the learned JMFC. Court has directed the JMFC to pass the order in accordance with the law, if police file a fresh application seeking the issuance of a fresh order of proclamation.

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri

click here to view judgement

27 Oct

Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take The Place Of Proof: High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Police, #Posh, #Sexual Assault, #Suspicion

Title: Mukesh Khampariya S/O V The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

Citation: Writ Petition No. 21852 of 2018

Decided on: 05th Of October, 2023

Coram: Justice Sujoy Paul

Introduction:

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 25.06.2018 and the enquiry report dated 25.07.2018 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for committing sexual harassment at the workplace.

Facts:

The petitioner was working as Station House Officer (SHO), in Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur between 27.08.2016 to 24.03.2017. During that period, respondent was posted in the said police station as Sub- Inspector.Respondent as an afterthought preferred a frivolous complaint dated 16.03.2017 alleging that petitioner committed sexual harassment in the workplace. Pursuant to the complaint dated 16.03.2017, an internal complaint committee was constituted as per the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013.

The internal committee consisting of five members conducted the inquiry, recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the report on 26.05.2017 and opined that the allegations against the petitioner for committing sexual harassment in workplace are not established. The respondent preferred an application against the aforesaid report of internal complain committee dated 24.05.2017. On 25.12.2017 the departmental authority came to hold that allegation of sexual harassment could not be established against the petitioner.

learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to another report dated 25.07.2018 whereby another inquiry report was prepared wherein charges were found to be proved against the petitioner.

Court’s decision and analysis :

The complaint can be made in writing within a period of three months from the date of incident. In this case, it is clear that incident had taken place on 12/10/2016 and complaint was preferred on 16/03/2017. Thus, complaint itself was barred by time. Apart from that complaint was considered by a five members committee which came to hold in the report dated 26/05/2017 that allegation of sexual harassment in work place could not be established against the petitioner. Even in Departmental appeal the concern authority came to hold that for want of sufficient evidence, allegation of sexual harassment in workplace could not be established.

here is no material evidence available against the petitioner. Merely because the complainant preferred repeated complains, the petitioner was held to be guilty. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof [See: AIR 1964 SC 364 (Union of India v. H.C. Goel)] For this reason also, this enquiry report is liable to be set aside. Hence, impugned order of Police Headquarter dated 25/06/2018 and enquiry report dated 25/07/2018 are set aside.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 72