28/06/2024

1) 'Examine Dowry Death Matters From All Possible Angles; Justify How
Case Falls Under S. 302, 304-B Or 306 IPC': Allahabad HC Directs UP
Police
The Allahabad High Court has directed a comprehensive approach to
investigating cases involving the death of married women within 7 years of
marriage, particularly those suspected to involve dowry-related issues. The
court emphasized that investigating officers (IOs) must conduct a thorough and
wide-ranging investigation to determine whether the death falls under Section
302 (murder), Section 304B (dowry death), or Section 306 (abetment to suicide)
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the
High Court instructed IOs not to rely solely on the initial FIR but to explore all
possible angles of the case. It cautioned against mechanically adding murder
charges without sufficient evidence, stressing that the primary charge should be
framed based on concrete investigative findings. Only if the evidence supports it
should murder charges under Section 302 IPC be considered, with dowry death
under Section 304B IPC as an alternative charge if necessary. Furthermore, the
court clarified that if the main charge of murder (Section 302 IPC) cannot be
substantiated during trial, only then should the evidence be examined to
determine if the charge of dowry death (Section 304B IPC) is applicable. This
approach aims to ensure that charges are framed judiciously based on the actual
evidence collected during investigation, rather than presumptively or
mechanically.

2) Officials Of CMRL Prima Facie Liable For Misappropriating Public

Money, Cheating General Public: ED Tells Kerala High Court
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented before the Kerala High Court
allegations of severe financial misconduct against officials of Cochin Minerals
and Rutile Ltd (CMRL), a public limited company. They accused CMRL
officials of committing serious offences under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, asserting that public money was misappropriated through
various fraudulent means. The ED claimed to have unearthed evidence
suggesting bogus expenses totaling more than 133.8 crores rupees, allegedly
disguised as transportation costs and other expenditures. Additionally, they
stated that illegal payments were made to politicians and public servants.
Specifically, the ED pointed out payments amounting to 1.72 crores rupees
made to Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by Veena Vijayan,
daughter of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, purportedly for software
services that were never provided. In response to a petition seeking to quash
proceedings based on the ED's Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR),
the ED argued that such a request was premature and not maintainable. They
clarified that an ECIR, unlike an FIR, is an internal document of the ED and
cannot be subjected to quashing petitions. The ED emphasized their authority to
conduct investigations and initiate actions such as issuing summons and
attaching properties under the PMLA, asserting that these actions do not require
the prior registration of an FIR. Regarding immunity sought by the petitioners
under the Income Tax Act via the Settlement Commission, the ED contended
that such immunity does not extend to prosecutions under laws like the PMLA
or IPC. They highlighted that the petitioners' application for immunity, filed in
2020, was outside the permissible timeline for seeking immunity from
prosecution under relevant central laws.
Earlier directives from the Kerala High Court included instructions for the ED
to preserve and retain CCTV footage of the interrogation of CMRL officials
who were summoned. The court has scheduled further hearings to delve deeper
into the allegations and arguments presented by both sides. Thus, the case
continues to unfold amidst allegations of bribery, financial impropriety, and
misuse of public funds involving CMRL officials and associated entities, with
legal proceedings ongoing in the Kerala High Court.

3) Lok Adalat 'Awards' Not Independent Verdict, Should Resist Temptation

To Play Role Of Regular Judges: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court recently clarified the nature of awards issued by Lok
Adalats, emphasizing that these are not independent adjudicatory verdicts but
administrative acts. The court reiterated that Lok Adalats should refrain from
acting as regular courts and instead focus on facilitating conciliation between
parties. In a case concerning the installation of Coach Indication Boards at a
railway station, two advocates approached the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking
directions against railway officials. The Lok Adalat issued an award directing
one of the petitioners to approach higher railway authorities for funding.
The petitioners challenged this award in the High Court, arguing that policy
matters like the one at hand fall under the jurisdiction of governmental
departments and cannot be adjudicated by Lok Adalats. The High Court agreed,
citing a Supreme Court judgment that criticized Lok Adalats acting beyond their
mandate by issuing orders akin to judicial rulings. The High Court clarified that
a Lok Adalat's award is merely an administrative act that formalizes the terms of
settlement or compromise reached by parties, rather than a judicial decision. It
stressed that Lok Adalats should guide parties towards amicable settlements by
explaining the merits and drawbacks of their respective claims, adhering to
principles of justice and equity. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Lok
Adalat's award requiring the petitioners to arrange for Coach Indication Boards,
affirming that such directions exceeded the Lok Adalat's authority. This case
underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring Lok Adalats operate within their
designated role as facilitators of conciliation, rather than as adjudicators of legal
disputes.

4) 'Single Testis In Scrotum, Medically Unfit': Orissa HC Dismisses Plea Of

Constable Who Was Denied Appointment As CISF Sub-Inspector
The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a Constable of
the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who was denied appointment to the
position of Sub-Inspector (SI) despite qualifying the written test in a
departmental examination. The grounds for denial were based on the petitioner's
medical condition of having a single testis in the scrotum, which was deemed
medically unfit for the SI role by the Medical Review Board. Dr. Justice
Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, presiding over the case, upheld the decision of the
Medical Review Board, emphasizing that the position of Sub-Inspector carries
higher duties and responsibilities than that of a Constable. The court highlighted
that eligibility criteria, including medical standards, must be strictly adhered to
for appointments to higher posts like SI. The petitioner, who joined CISF as a
Constable in 2008, had applied for the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination (LDCE) in 2014. Despite qualifying the written exam, he was
found medically unfit during physical verification due to his medical condition.
Subsequent review examinations upheld the initial finding of medical unfitness.

In its judgment, the High Court referenced a Delhi High Court case to
underscore the stringent standards expected in armed forces recruitment. Justice
Panigrahi clarified that the standards for appointment to the positions of
Constable and Sub-Inspector are distinctly different, including medical criteria,
and the petitioner's appointment as Constable in 2008 did not influence his
eligibility for the SI role. The court concluded that the decision of the Medical
Review Board was in accordance with the prescribed selection rules and did not
reflect any bias against the petitioner. Therefore, finding no merit in the
petitioner's allegations of illegality or arbitrariness, the High Court dismissed
the writ petition. This case highlights the judiciary's role in upholding strict
eligibility criteria, including medical standards, for promotions and
appointments within security forces, ensuring that candidates meet all specified
requirements for higher positions based on objective assessments.

5) Intimate Relationship Between Adults Does Not Justify Sexual Assault

On Partner: Bombay High Court While Refusing To Quash Rape Case
The Bombay High Court recently declined to quash an FIR and subsequent
charge sheet filed against a petitioner accused of rape by his girlfriend. The
division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale emphasized
that a consensual relationship between adults does not justify sexual assault if
consent is withdrawn at any point. The case involved allegations by the
complainant that despite initially consenting to a relationship, she had refused
further sexual advances from the petitioner. She accused him of forcibly having
sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions, despite her protests and
refusals. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had made false
promises of marriage to coerce her into a sexual relationship. The petitioner,
facing charges under various sections of the IPC including rape, argued that the
relationship was consensual and pointed to discrepancies in the complainant's
allegations, such as a delay in filing the FIR and her marital status.
The High Court, however, relied on the complainant's allegations and noted that
the medical examination report corroborated her claims of forced sexual
intercourse. The court underscored that initial consent does not imply
continuous consent, especially when one partner expresses unwillingness. It
highlighted that the complainant had explicitly rejected the petitioner's advances
and accused him of rape under specific circumstances. Citing legal precedent
and emphasizing the seriousness of sexual assault allegations, the court rejected
the petitioner's plea to quash the case, stating that the allegations constituted a
prima facie case of the offence. The court asserted that the petitioner's defense
could not be assessed at the initial stage and emphasized the importance of not
scrutinizing the victim's testimony with skepticism in cases of sexual assault.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, concluding that
the allegations of forced sexual activity did not support the claim that the sexual
relationship was consensual. This decision underscores the court's commitment
to upholding justice and protecting victims of sexual assault by taking
allegations seriously and ensuring thorough investigation and trial processes.

6) Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC

Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death
Cases
The Allahabad High Court recently addressed the issue of mechanical addition
of Section 302 IPC (Murder) to cases involving dowry death and related charges
without sufficient evidence. A bench comprising Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and
Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi expressed concern over trial courts in Uttar
Pradesh routinely adding Section 302 IPC as an alternate charge without
adequate justification, based on a mistaken interpretation of legal precedents.
The court highlighted that charges should be framed based on the evidence
collected during investigation, not as a mere formality. It criticized the practice
where Section 302 IPC was added mechanically without substantial material to
support such a grave charge. The High Court clarified that if a charge under
Section 302 IPC is to be added, it should be based on clear evidence justifying
such a serious offence, and not as an alternate charge alongside dowry death
charges under Section 304-B IPC.
The background of the case involved six criminal appeals where the accused
were convicted under dowry death and related charges, with Section 302 IPC
added as an alternative charge. The court noted that this practice was based on a
misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's directives in the Rajbir case (2010),
which was later clarified in the Jasvinder Saini case (2013). The Supreme Court
had emphasized that Section 302 IPC should only be added if evidence supports
a murder charge alongside dowry death allegations. Further, the High Court
cautioned the investigating agencies to thoroughly examine all aspects of cases
involving allegations of dowry death, including murder and abetment to suicide,
based on the evidence collected rather than relying solely on the FIR. It stressed
that the use of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof onto
the accused was incorrect and should not be misused to secure convictions
without proper evidence.
In light of these observations, the Allahabad High Court set aside the judgments
in the six appeals and ordered retrials in the respective Sessions Courts. It
directed the lower courts to reframe charges strictly adhering to the guidelines
set forth in the Jasvinder Saini case and to conclude the trials expeditiously by
the end of December 2024, ensuring fair proceedings without undue
adjournments. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring
proper application of law and procedural fairness in cases involving serious
offences like murder and dowry death, thereby upholding the principles of
justice and due process.

7) Can Voters Approach SEC Seeking Disqualification Of Elected Members

U/S 4 Of Local Authorities (Prohibition Of Defection) Act: Kerala HC To
Consider
The Kerala High Court is considering a plea challenging Section 4 of the Kerala
Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, specifically regarding its
exclusion of voters from filing petitions for the disqualification of elected
members on grounds of defection. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. has requested
instructions from the State Government and State Election Commission on this
matter. The case stems from elections to the Local Self Government held in
2020, where the petitioner, a voter, contested the disqualification of the 3rd
respondent, an elected member of Eruvessy Grama Panchayath in Kannur
district. The 3rd respondent, initially elected as an independent candidate, later
joined the Indian National Congress, prompting the petitioner to file an election
petition seeking disqualification for defection.
However, the State Election Commission dismissed the petitioner's election
petition, citing Section 4 of the Act, which limits the filing of disqualification
petitions to members of the local authority, the concerned political party, or
persons authorized by the party. The Commission ruled that a petition filed by a
voter seeking disqualification was not maintainable under the current law. The
plea argues that Section 4's exclusion of voters defeats the legislative intent of
preventing defection among elected representatives and ensuring political
accountability and stability. It asserts that voters, as stakeholders in maintaining
electoral integrity, should have the right to challenge defection by elected
representatives when neither the member nor the political party concerned takes
action. The petitioner contends that this exclusion violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits
unreasonable classifications. It argues that allowing voters to file petitions
would serve the larger public interest in upholding democratic principles and
preventing defection, thereby aligning with the objectives of the Act. The plea
suggests that a harmonious interpretation of Section 4 to include voters as
eligible to challenge defection would better fulfill the legislative intent and
uphold democratic values.
As the matter progresses, the High Court's examination of this issue will likely
involve considerations of constitutional principles, legislative intent, and the
broader implications for electoral accountability within local authorities in
Kerala.

8) No Universal Formula For Using One Language In Govt Affairs:

Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Mandatory Usage Of Kannada In
Govt Correspondence
The Karnataka High Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL)
that sought a direction for all government correspondence in Karnataka to be
conducted exclusively in the Kannada language. The division bench comprising
Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravinda made observations that
while promoting Kannada, the local language of the state, is important, it does
not warrant mandating all government communication exclusively in
Kannada.The PIL was filed by Gurunath Vadde, who argued through counsel
that people in rural areas face difficulties understanding languages other than
Kannada, and thus, they should be allowed to communicate with government
officials in Kannada when they receive official letters.
The court took note of the government's submission that Kannada is extensively
used in governmental affairs and communications but emphasized that the use
of English alongside Kannada cannot be entirely eliminated where necessary.
The bench highlighted that there cannot be a universal rule dictating the sole use
of one language in governmental affairs. Before concluding, the High Court
expressed its expectation that the government and its officials would prioritize
the use of Kannada as much as possible, recognizing its significance in
preserving Karnataka's culture and serving its people. As a result, the court
disposed of the petition in light of these considerations.

9) Reasonable Opportunity To Be Heard Before Cancelling FCRA

Registration Not Restricted To Issuing Show-Cause Notice, Includes
Personal Hearing: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled in favor of the Centre for Wildlife
Studies, overturning the Union Ministry of Home Affairs' decision to cancel its
registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA).
The court's decision, rendered by a single judge bench of Justice M
Nagaprasanna, centered on the grounds that the trust had not been granted a
personal hearing before the registration cancellation. The Centre for Wildlife
Studies, which focuses on scientific research and conservation of wildlife
habitats, including rehabilitation projects for endangered species, had its
registration cancelled by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 4th September
2023. This action followed earlier suspensions and show cause notices related to
a change in the trust's bank account and its receipt of funds from foreign and
Indian contributors.
In response, the trust argued that the cancellation order lacked reasons and that
it was entitled to a personal hearing as part of the principles of natural justice,
especially given the severe civil and economic consequences outlined in Section
14(3) of the FCRA. The Union Government contended that Section 14(2) of the
FCRA required only a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which they argued
was adequately fulfilled through the issuance of show cause notices. The
Karnataka High Court, however, interpreted Section 14 of the FCRA to mandate
not just a show cause notice but also a personal hearing in cases where
cancellation of registration could lead to significant civil and economic
repercussions. The court emphasized that the consequences of cancellation
under Section 14(3) were severe, preventing any entity whose registration is
cancelled from reapplying for three years. Citing a similar case from the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Karnataka High Court underscored that "hearing"
in Section 14(2) should include a personal hearing and not merely the issuance
of a show cause notice. It rejected the Union Government's contention that a
personal hearing was not necessary.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition by the Centre for Wildlife
Studies, quashing the cancellation order dated 4th September 2023. The court
affirmed that the failure to grant a personal hearing rendered the cancellation
order unsustainable under the principles of natural justice. In conclusion, while
granting relief to the trust, the High Court provided the Union of India with
liberty to act in accordance with the law, considering the court's observations, if
deemed necessary. This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness
and the right to a personal hearing before administrative decisions with
significant consequences are made under the FCRA.

10) S.311 CrPC | Plea For Examining New Witnesses, Submitting

Fresh Documents Should Only Be Allowed To Meet The Ends Of Justice:
Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently deliberated on the application of Section 311 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers courts to summon
witnesses, examine documents, or re-examine witnesses to ensure the ends of
justice are met. Justice A. Badharudden emphasized that this power should only
be invoked for strong and valid reasons, cautioning against its misuse to benefit
one party or as a guise for a retrial. In the case before the High Court, the
petitioner (accused) was charged with causing the death of a 3-year-old boy by
forcefully hitting his head against a wall, resulting in fatal internal bleeding.
During the trial, the defence argued that the child's death was actually due to
medical negligence. After the prosecution presented its witnesses and evidence,
they filed petitions seeking to re-examine a forensic medicine consultant,
summon the treatment records of the child, and examine a neurosurgeon from
the hospital where the child was treated.
The trial court granted these petitions, prompting the accused to challenge this
decision in the High Court. The defence contended that the prosecution was
attempting to fill gaps in their evidence after understanding the defence's case,
arguing against allowing the petitions under Section 311 CrPC. The prosecution
justified their petitions by stating they were filed before the completion of their
evidence and were necessary to counter the defence's claim of medical
negligence. They explained that the original treatment records were not
available during the investigation and that allowing these petitions was crucial
to ensure justice. Upon reviewing the arguments, the High Court upheld the trial
court's decision, noting that the petitions were filed at an appropriate stage—
before the completion of the prosecution's evidence. The court acknowledged
that the defence had already raised doubts about medical negligence during
cross-examination, justifying the need for additional medical evidence. The
High Court concluded that granting these petitions did not unfairly prejudice the
accused nor did it amount to creating a new case for the prosecution. Instead, it
facilitated the presentation of necessary evidence crucial to making a just
decision in the case.
Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order,
affirming the principle that Section 311 CrPC should be exercised judiciously
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice to ensure fairness and
completeness in criminal proceedings.