5 Important Indian High Courts Cases Decided Today [Tuesday, October 9, 2018]

1. Pramod Kumar Rusia v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be inferred that the Appellant had made any demand for bribe or he had accepted any money from the Complainant as bribe - PW11 has stated that the Complainant had kept the money in the hand of the Appellant when he was sleeping and later on that money was seized from the hand of the Appellant. In the circumstance, on washing of the hands of the Appellant in a solution of sodium carbonate, turning of colour of that solution into pink is natural. Mere recovery of tainted money from the Appellant does not prove demand or acceptance of bribe money. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence alleged against the Appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Number : Criminal Appeal No. 2829 of 1999
Bench : Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

2. Jeetu Nat v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 377, 325, 307, 302, 201 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5, 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - the victim of the offence or the accused should not suffer for lapses or omission of Court since for omission to put material evidence to accused in the course of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution is not guilty of not adducing or suppressing such evidence, but it is the failure on the part of Trial Court. Omission on part of Trial Court to put material evidence to accused in the course of their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. has caused prejudice to them, but, at the same time considering entirety of facts and circumstances of the case on hand, accused do not deserve acquittal on account of such defect / omission. Matter is remitted back to Trial Court for proceeding afresh from the stage of recording statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Case Number : Capital Cases No. 5345 of 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal and Om Prakash JJ.

3. Lomesh v. State of H.P. [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 185 - Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs - Whether the FIR in such like cases can, in fact, be quashed on the basis of compromise ? - Though the State has expressed its slight reservation regarding compounding of the offence but I find that this is not such wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offence against the State. Even otherwise, once respondent No.2 has compromised the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.

Bench : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

4. Sunil Singh v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 307/149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - In the instant case, most of the appellants were not involved in the actual assault and evidences, which have come on record. There is also no material on record to indicate that there was any previous meeting of minds or premeditation and thus their conviction under Section 149 I.P.C. appears to be wholly uncalled for and fit to be set aside.

Case Number : Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 815 of 2012
Bench : Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Anjana Mishra JJ.

5. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) v. Rajpal [Delhi High Court]

Service Law - The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to parity of scales of pay of Chowkidars / Security Guards posted in the Health Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), vis-à-vis Chowkidars posted in other departments of the MCD. The dispute arose because Chowkidars/ Security Guards posted in the Health Department of the MCD, were being paid ₹ 2610-4000 per month, whereas Chowkidars / Security Guards in other departments of the MCD were paid ₹ 2500-3200. The Industrial Tribunal has held that Chowkidars / Security Guards, who were posted in other departments of the MCD, were entitled to be paid the scale of pay granted to Chowkidars / Security Guards posted in the Health Department, i.e. ₹ 2610-4000. This department-to-department disparity, which existed in the MCD, qua Chowkidars / Security Guards, and which has been set right by the impugned Award, obviously fell afoul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and could not have been allowed to continue. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the claims of the respondent and equalising their pay and emoluments with those of Chowkidars / Security Guards posted in the Health Department.

Case Number : W.P. (C) 170 of 2011
Bench : C. Hari Shankar, J.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post