Updates - 4 July to 6 July
- Krishnapriya Sreekumar
- Jul 6, 2022
- 9 min read
4 July 2022
Delhi HC: Govt's anti-corruption Branch empowered to investigate allegations against Delhi Police Officials.
The Delhi High Court's Justice Jasmeet Singh, citing Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi, reiterated that the Delhi Police serves the citizens of the national capital, and its functions are substantially related to the affairs of Delhi. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government is conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain and act upon complaints received against a Delhi Police officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In doing so, the Branch may also investigate and prosecute the concerned official.
"Any official of the Central government accused of corruption cannot get away with the mere technicality of the Anti Corruption Branch not investigating them. When a complaint is made to an authority in charge, it is the duty of that authority to duly investigate and look into the said allegations. They may after due diligence, transfer the matter to the concerned authority to look into the same but they have the right to investigate the same at the time of lodging of the complaint."
[Johnson Jacob v. State]
4 July 2022
Delhi HC: Court not a casino for litigants to place a bet masquerading as a legal claim.
The Delhi High Court's Justice Anup Bhambhani observed that no legal proceedings may be initiated by a litigant as a mere gamble as if placing a wager from which they may conveniently withdraw when matters don't favour his way.
"A court is a forum for laying serious, bona-fidé claims, even if they turn-out to be legally untenable or meritless upon conclusion of the process. A court is not a place for fraudulent game-playing by dishonest litigants, to attempt to get judicial imprimatur for false claims. This derives from the inexorable, immutable and overarching principle that fraud or fraudulent conduct in a court of law vitiates all curial proceedings."
"Lady Justice is blindfolded only so as to be non-partisan; but not to be blind to mischief, deception or fraud being played-out before it by dishonest litigants making a mockery of the judicial process"
[SH Awaneesh Chandra Jha v. Anil Prasad Nanda]
4 July 2022
Aiding Young Mothers: Madras HC allows lawyers to seek specific time slots for arguments.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court [Madurai Bench] has informed the bar members that lawyers who are young mothers may seek specific time slots for their arguments after informing the concerned Court Officers.
This option is subject to one condition: "On one condition - they must prepare so well that they consume minimum amount of time. They must pass on the dates and events, case-laws on which they are going to rely, the propositions which they want to advance to the court officer a day earlier".
The concession is only available to independent practitioners, and advocates belonging to an office cannot seek the benefit of time slots for "their male seniors," reads the letter issued by the Justice.
The option is active from 5 July 2022 onwards.
4 July 2022
J,K&L HC: Presumption of Innocence under S.3, JJ Act not applicable to adult co-accused.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh has reiterated that the principle of 'presumption of innocence' in favour of a juvenile accused under Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 would not extend to the adult co-accused in the offence.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed the same whilst rejecting the contention of the petitioners in the present case that, since the main accused is a juvenile presumed to be innocent, the petitioners herein cannot be 'roped in' by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 3(i) of the JJ Act provides that any child shall be presumed innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.
"The argument advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners appears to be misconceived for the reason that presumption under Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is applicable to the case of juvenile accused i.e. Jan Mohammad Changa and not to the cases of other adult accused, who, from the circumstances appearing in the material on record of the case, clearly shared a common intention of launching a murderous attack on the complainant party. The contention of learned senior counsel is, therefore, without any merit."
[Taja Begum & Ors v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir]
5 July 2022
Gauhati HC sets aside the life sentence of accused on the ground of 'unsoundness of mind'.
In the present case, the accused/appellant had hacked his wife on her neck and thereafter attempted suicide. A case was registered against the accused under Sections 498A, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
"The accused also did not try to flee or destroy any evidence, although he had the opportunity to do so. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant would not have resorted to such a behavior had he been in a position to comprehend the consequences of his conduct."
Medical evidence given by the Board [constituted to examine him] also supported the notion of his unsoundness of mind.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code examines the consequences that would be attracted by the criminal actions of a person suffering from unsoundness of mind: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing that is either wrong or contrary to law."
In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court has held that the burden of proving that the circumstances do exist to bring the case within the purview of section 84 of IPC lies on the accused.
In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, it was observed that the accused must prove "legal unsoundness" of mind and not merely medical unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence...The burden to prove such fact was upon the accused but the accused is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt but has merely to satisfy the requirement of preponderance of probability."
Examining all facts and evidence produced before it, the Court opined:
"Having regard to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant is responsible for the death of his wife Manjuara Bibi by hacking her in the neck with a 'dao.' However, the appellant has also succeeded in establishing, by preponderance of probability, that he was suffering from "unsoundness of mind" not only before and after the occurrence but also at the time of the incident which was of such nature that it can be referred to as "legal insanity."..."mental un-soundness" at the time of the occurrence, which was of such a degree that he was unable to understand the consequences of his actions. We are therefore, of the view that the necessary circumstances so at bring this case within the ambit of section 84 of IPC has been cogently established by the appellant."
[Zakir Hussain v. State of Assam & Anr.]
5 July 2022
Kerala HC: Delay in reporting sexual offences is to be viewed differently.
Kerala High Court's Justice Kauser Edappagath opined that delay in reporting matters of sexual offences has to be viewed differently.
"The delay in a case of sexual assault cannot be equated with a delay in a case involving other offences since several factors weigh on the mind of the victim and members of her family."
Justice Kauser further observed: "In a tradition-bound society like ours, particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The delay becomes fatal only in a case when there is doubt as to the genesis or genuineness of the prosecution case."
[XXX. v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
5 July 2022
Delhi HC: Law is worth tinsel if the underprivileged can't get justice.
The Delhi High Court recently observed that Courts ought to be sensitive and sensitized in equal measure when 'the poor and deprived knock' at its doors.
Justice C Hari Shankar stated that the Court must "remain alive to the fact that such litigants do not have access to exhaustive legal resources."
"Law, with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice. At the end of the day, our preambular goal is not law, but justice. Law is but the instrument, the via media, as it were, to attain the ultimate goal of justice, and law which cannot aspire to justice is, therefore, not worth administering"
Referring to Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India, the Court expressed that alleviating the plight of the poor and homeless is subsumed in Part IV. Although they are not enforceable by Courts of Law, they are fundamental in the country's governance and must be considered by the State whilst making laws.
[Samarpal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
5 July 2022
J,K&L HC: Judges must refrain from making derogatory remarks unless necessary.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh observed that Judges should abstain from derogatory or disparaging remarks against counsels, parties, or witnesses unless undoubtedly essential for deciding a case.
The Bench comprising Justice Mohan Lal emphasized that Judges hold a 'powerful seat' that must not be misused by entertaining such remarks and 'undignified banter.'
"Judges and Magistrates must be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint...Jin the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the Courts...the judges should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve and harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against the parties or authorities unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as integral part thereof"
In the present matter, the Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for expunging adverse remarks, observations, and directions made by the Special NIA Judge, Jammu. The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department, was aggrieved by the observations and remarks made by the learned Judge in the impugned order.
The order contained made derogatory remarks about the petition using words such as "lethargic and sluggish" "sheer incompetency and negligence" "delinquent police officer" and remarked that the petitioner has not "done his job in a honest and abled manner."
In addition to this, the Special Judge also remarked: "I am quite surprise that how Mr. Sunny Gupta, Dy. SP has qualified the administrative examination of the state and become Dy. SP in the police department, as I have not been able to find him suitable to the basic intellect of an ordinary person."
In his concluding remarks, Justice Mohan Lal held, "Judge's Bench is a seat of power and has absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain, but they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. It is the general principle of highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks are not to be made against persons unless absolutely necessary for decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct."
[Sunny Gupta v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.]
6 July 2022
J,K&L HC: Party cannot approach Court under S. 482 at his whim and caprice merely because no limitation period is prescribed.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh recently opined that a party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per his leisure, with inordinate delay, merely because the provision does not prescribe a limitation period.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that a petition under the said section must be filed within a reasonable time and must not be vitiated by inordinate delay.
In the present case, the petitioner had challenged an FIR for offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir.
However, the charge was filed in 2005, denoting a delay of 14 years in approaching the Court.
"In the petition there is no explanation, much less any plausible explanation by the petitioner for the said abnormal delay in filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The question arises as to whether it would be proper for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C after such a long delay, particularly when evidence of the prosecution is almost complete"
The Court, after observing a myriad of precedents concerning the present matter, concluded that: "A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided. A petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner".
Regarding what denotes "reasonable time," the Court opined: "Within what time a petitioner should approach the Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case."
[Eapen Chakoo v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir]
Comments