0

DENIAL OF GRANT OF BAIL PETITION IN HEINOUS CRIMES BY ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT.

Blog , , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3421 of 2023

Date of Judgement – 18.05.2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the denial of bail petition in case of non-bailable offences (section 437 cr.p.c.) and the power of high court or court of session regarding bail (section 439 cr.p.c.).

All the provisions followed in this case are as follows: – 

Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape.

Section 354 of IPC. Voyeurism 1 to 3 years + Fine for first conviction 3 to 7 years + Fine for second or subsequent conviction

Section 384 of IPC. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 323 of IPC. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 420 of IPC. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Section 506 of IPC. Punishment for criminal intimidation—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 34 of IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

The court heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, Learned Counsel representing Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State.

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.134 of 2023 of Eluru III Town Police Station, Eluru District. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(C), 384, 323, 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

FACTS

On 25.1.2023, when the Husband of the de facto Complainant was not at home, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with another came to the house of the de facto Complainant asked about her husband and offered Badam Milk. After drinking the same, the de facto Complainant fell unconscious and the Petitioner had fulfilled his sexual desires with her and taken videos in his phone. Thereafter, the Petitioner used to threaten to post videos in social media if she does not agree to his demand. In that process, the Petitioner demanded and took Bank Cheques from her.

JUDGEMENT

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was arrested on 03.4.2023 and remanded to judicial custody. Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case by the husband of the de facto Complainant, who was a Colleague of the Petitioner, due to evade the loans taken from the Petitioner and his friends.

The allegations that were made against the Petitioner were heinous in nature, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

COURT DISMISSES PETITION ALLEGING CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND NEGLIGENCE IN CONSTRUCTION SITE INCIDENT, AFFIRMS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO PROCEED WITH CRIMINAL TRIAL AGAINST PETITIONERS: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Blog , , , ,

INTRODUCTION:

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 04 May 2023 on a case involving allegations of culpable homicide and negligence at a construction site. The case of PINKESH DHIRAJ PATEL & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 2022 which was passed by the division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.M. SATHAYE. The petitioners challenged the charge-sheet filed against them, arguing that the offense of culpable homicide was not applicable in their situation.

FACTS:

The case revolves around a charge-sheet filed against the petitioners under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contended that they should not be charged with culpable homicide as defined by Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. They argued that the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) did not demonstrate any intention to cause death or inflict bodily injury likely to cause death, which are essential elements for culpable homicide.

The petitioners’ defence focused on the absence of overt acts on their part that would meet the requirements for culpable homicide. They emphasized that the FIR did not establish any criminal intention or knowledge on their part. They referred to a previous legal precedent, the case of Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, to support their argument.

The respondent-state, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), countered the petitioners’ claims. They argued that the specific allegations against the petitioners indicated their negligence in providing proper safety measures at the construction site. The respondent’s counsel highlighted that the tragic death occurred due to the petitioners’ failure to install safety belts and leaving dangerously exposed vertical iron bars in the column. They contended that the act of negligence led to the unfortunate incident, and it would be a matter for trial to determine if there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause a fatal injury.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Section 304 of the IPC: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishing those who cause death without fulfilling the criteria for murder.

Section 34 of the IPC: Holds individuals jointly liable for a criminal act when committed in furtherance of a common intention.

Section 299 of the IPC: Defines culpable homicide, involving the intentional causing of death or bodily injury likely to cause death.

Section 227 of the CrPC: Empowers the Sessions Court to discharge the accused if there is insufficient ground for proceeding with the case, requiring recording of reasons for the decision.

JUDGMENT:

The court thoroughly analysed the arguments presented by both parties and referred to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 227 stipulates that if, after considering the case record and the submissions of the accused and prosecution, the judge finds no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, they may be discharged.

The court acknowledged the difference between what constitutes a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in a sessions trial and what constitutes the offense itself. It emphasized that the possibility of the accused’s acquittal does not negate the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding.

In its ruling, the court recognized two aspects of the case: an omission on the part of the petitioners and an overt act. While the omission did not attract the offense of culpable homicide, the court found that the petitioners’ act of leaving dangerously exposed vertical iron bars, which were being used during construction work, could be considered an overt act.

The court concluded that prima facie evidence of an overt act, coupled with the knowledge of the potential harm it could cause, provided sufficient grounds for proceeding further with the criminal trial against the petitioners. It clarified that the final determination of the petitioners’ guilt or innocence would be a matter for trial.

Additionally, the court dismissed the documents presented by the petitioners, which allegedly showed the Labour Commissioner’s adjudication on the incident. It clarified that compensation granted by the Labour Commissioner does not equate to a finding of accidental death without criminal intention or knowledge.

Considering the analysis and considerations, the court dismissed the petition and held that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the criminal trial against the petitioners.

“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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

0

ANALYZING THE GROUNDS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED IN THE HIGH-PROFILE CORRUPTION CASE: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Blog , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 04 May 2023. In the case of THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs RAJESAHEB YASHWANT RANE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2012 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK. The judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the State, raising important issues regarding the acceptance of evidence and the interference with a judgment of acquittal.

FACTS

The case involved the judgment by the Special Judge of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Sindhudurg – Oros, a respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Talathi, the accused, who allegedly demanded a bribe for issuing a 7/12 extract to the complainant, the owner of agricultural land. The de facto complainant, Joseph Eyyalil, owned agricultural land and approached the accused Talathi for the issuance of a 7/12 extract. The accused allegedly demanded a bribe for this service, and the complainant paid a partial amount before successfully setting up a trap to catch the accused. However, during the trial, the complainant’s support for the prosecution’s case was inconsistent and lacked clarity. The trial court acquitted the accused based on the complainant’s lack of full support, variance in testimonies between the complainant and the trap panch, and the absence of forensic analysis of the digital evidence in the form of recorded conversations.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Section 7: Prohibits public servants from accepting or attempting to obtain bribes or gratification for performing or abstaining from official acts.

Section 13(1)(d): Defines the offense of criminal misconduct by a public servant, involving the use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain personal or third-party benefits.

Section 13(2): Prescribes imprisonment for one to seven years and a fine for public servants found guilty of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d).

These sections aim to prevent corruption and ensure public officials act with integrity. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides a legal framework to deter and punish corruption-related offenses in India.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL:

The State challenged the judgment of acquittal, raising the following issues in the appeal:

Reliance on other evidence: Whether the trial court should have accepted other evidence when the complainant did not fully support the case.

Corroborative evidence: Whether the trial court should have accepted corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution.

Interference with the judgment of acquittal: Considering the limited scope of the appeal, whether the judgment of acquittal can be overturned based on the grounds raised in the appeal.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PRECEDENTS:

The defence relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy v. The District Inspector of Police and Others, where the court considered the issue of adequacy of evidence in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court clarified that even if the de facto complainant is unavailable or does not support the case, the court can convict the accused based on other available evidence

JUDGEMENT

The judgment of acquittal in the corruption case raises several important issues that warrant careful analysis and consideration. While the trial court acquitted the accused based on the complainant’s lack of full support for the prosecution’s case, the State has challenged the judgment, arguing that corroborative evidence should have been considered.

The trial court’s decision to acquit the accused appears to be primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the complainant’s testimony. The court observed that the complainant had partially resiled from his initial complaint, and his statements during the trial varied from his earlier accounts. Such inconsistencies weaken the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, which is crucial for establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, the absence of forensic analysis of the recorded conversations raises questions about the reliability of the evidence. Forensic analysis could have provided valuable insights into the authenticity and accuracy of the recorded conversations, which could have been a significant piece of evidence in proving the accused’s involvement in corruption. Without this analysis, the court may have had reasonable doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented.

However, the State’s argument that corroborative evidence should have been considered carries weight. The successful trap operation, where the accused was apprehended while accepting the bribe, and the partial payment made by the complainant do provide some support to the prosecution’s case. While the complainant’s credibility may have been called into question, these corroborative elements could have been examined more thoroughly to determine their relevance and impact on the overall 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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

0

A person’s right to life and liberty cannot be invoked if they are not physically present in India: Gujarat High Court

Blog , , ,

Dhanraj Rajendra Patel vs Union Of India on 6 January, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26810 of 2022

Facts

The petitioner, a citizen of the United States, submitted this petition in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in order to reverse and annul the notice that the Indian Bureau of Immigration issued to him denying him entry. The petitioner’s advocate argued that the Civil Authority has the authority to deny a foreigner entry into India if, among other things, it is satisfied that the foreigner has been found guilty of an extradition offence under the terms of the Extradition Act, 1903.

Judgement

The Law on Extradition and the Foreigners Act, according to the Court, are two separate Acts. According to extradition laws, the goal is to handover individuals who are suspected of committing specific crimes on the territories or who have already been found guilty of those crimes by their Courts for prosecution or punishment. The Foreigners Act of 1946, on the other hand, grants the authority to deport a foreign national.

The petitioner has been found guilty of being a sex offender, according to the court, and this is also noted on his passport. Guidelines stating that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter Indian territory have been issued in the exercise of a statutory power derived from Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Section 3 confers powers on the Central Government to make orders. As per Section 3(1)

“The Central Government may by order make provision, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into 2[India] or, their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein.”

Hence, the Central Government has the power to impose laws that are upheld to bar such individuals from entering Indian territory. Before he could do so, the petitioner was deported to Dubai by the agency ie the airline, under section 6 of the Foreigners Order 1948. As per section 6, if a foreigner who has been refused permission to enter India is on board an aircraft which has arrived in India, a civil authority may require the pilot of the aircraft to deboard him.

The Court also cited Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) v. District Superintendent of Police, SCA No. 13566/2022 dated 18-07-2022, and held that the petitioner, an American passport holder, was ineligible to invoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution because she had deplaned and was in Dubai.

The petitioner’s father initiated and signed the current petition. The Court ruled that when a person is not physically present in India, his or her life or freedom cannot be asserted on his or her behalf.

Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

 

0

CAT, Ahmedabad is not competent to dismiss show cause notice in fake encounter case: Gujarat High Court

Blog ,

Rajnish Kumar Rai, IPS (Retd.) V. Union of India,

Bench: Honourable Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar

R/Special Civil Application No. 7133 of 2023

Facts of the Case

In a civil petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (‘CAT’), wherein former IPS officer Rajnish Rai’s (‘petitioner’) application challenging the show cause notice was dismissed. The Division Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi and Hasmukh D. Suthar, JJ., dismissed the petition and said that CAT, Ahmedabad did not commit any error while dismissing the original application and review application filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner was a member of the Indian Police Service (or “IPS”) class of 1992. On March 30, 2017, the officer in question informed the petitioner that two people who claimed to be members of the NDFB(S) cadre had allegedly been killed in a false encounter in the village of Simlaiguri in the district of Chirang, Assam, during the previous night. Therefore, in accordance with procedure, he duly informed regarding the joint operation to ADJ, NE Zone, CRPF, Guwahati, and other competent authorities as per the practice

The petitioner was relocated to Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, from Shillong. The preliminary investigation against the petitioner was later made known to him. He subsequently filed a petition before the CAT’s Principal Bench in New Delhi, challenging both his transfer and the commencement of a preliminary inquiry against him in the matter of fake encounter. CAT’s Principal Bench dismissed the application on August 9, 2017. The petitioner, who felt aggrieved by the ruling, brought a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court. A show cause notice with the date December 28, 2021 was sent on the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ case ultimately

Later, the petitioner challenged the aforementioned show cause notice issued on December 28, 2021, by filing an application in 2023 before the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench. On February 16, 2023, the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench rejected the aforementioned application. After that, the petitioner filed a Review Application with the CAT in Ahmedabad, which was rejected.  In order to show that the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench has the authority to hear and decide the original application submitted to it, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16-02-2023 and asked the court to direct the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench to hear and decide the aforementioned case on the merits.

Issue

Whether the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioner or not?

JUDGEMENT

The Court took note of the petitioner’s case’s facts and found that the petitioner was required to submit an original application against the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 28.12.2021 before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, after the Delhi High Court had given the petitioner permission to approach the CAT. However, the petitioner filed an application to the CAT in Ahmedabad.

According to the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (the “Rules of 1987”), rule 6(2) specifically states that individuals who have lost their employment due to retirement, discharge, or termination of service may, at their discretion, file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction they are ordinarily residing at the time of filing the application. The petitioner’s services were neither terminated nor was he retired in the current instance, according to the Court. There was no presumed resignation in this instance. Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1987 would not therefore apply in the petitioner’s situation

The Court further stated that because the show-cause notice was issued from New Delhi, the CAT, Ahmedabad, lacked jurisdiction under rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1987. Moreover, the Court ruled that just because the petitioner had received a show cause notice, it cannot be assumed that the respondents have violated or are threatening to violate any of the petitioner’s legal rights as a result of the issuance of the aforementioned show cause notice.

The Court said that the CAT, Ahmedabad, had rightly rejected the review application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no apparent error on the face of the record. The Court also said that the CAT, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the original application filed by the petitioner. Thus, the CAT did not commit any error while dismissing the original application and review application filed by the petitioner

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

 

1 … 24 25 26 27