Bail: Kidnapping

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 363, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –Section 438 – Bail – Kidnapping – Taking away of minor girl for two months – Repeated rape – No Bail (Para 10)

(B)Medical Examination of the victims of sexual assault – Directions issued – Following directions issued:

(i) Circulation of existing guidelines and SOPs: The Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India is directed to ensure that the existing guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure for conducting examination of the victims of sexual assault are circulated in all the hospitals in Delhi;

(ii) Regarding additional directions issued vide this judgment: The abovesaid Ministries are also directed to circulate the additional directions contained in the present judgment which be added to the existing SOPs, that in case the victim is pregnant and there are orders for medical termination of pregnancy including for preservation of fetus, the investigating officer will place such order before the Superintendent of the hospital concerned, who will ensure that the doctor concerned who is assigned the duty of medical termination of pregnancy conducts the same with utmost caution;

(iii) Producing the victim within 24 hours of order of competent authority before the hospital even in pregnancy of less than 20 weeks: The investigating officer concerned will produce the victim for the purpose of medical termination of pregnancy within 24 hours of passing of such order before the Superintendent of the concerned hospital, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks as in the present case;

(iv) Preservation of fetus: It is directed that the doctor concerned will ensure that the fetus is preserved and the victim is not discharged in a hurry, resulting in putting the life of the victim in danger and loss of evidence in a sexual assault case;

(v) Recording of reasons for discharge without termination of pregnancy: The doctor concerned will also mention, in case the victim is discharged without termination of pregnancy, the reasons for the same so that the crucial evidence in the form of fetus is not lost;

(vi) Recording of details of treatment for medical termination of pregnancy: It shall be duty of the doctor concerned also to mention in detail, the treatment given to the victim of sexual assault including any medicines given or procedure carried out for the purpose of termination of pregnancy;

(vii) Difficulty faced by the Courts in reading MLCs and need to file typed MLC in sexual assault cases: The Courts experience difficulty in reading or making out the observations in the MLCs or discharge summaries as they may not be comprehensible due to illegibility of the handwriting of the concerned doctor, medical abbreviations and terminology used, etc. This Court remains aware of the fact that when the MLC is being prepared by the doctor, due to various constraints and reasons of privacy etc., it has to be handwritten.

Therefore, it is directed that in cases where medical examination of a victim of sexual assault is conducted, all the hospitals concerned will ensure that alongwith the original MLC as well as discharge summary of such victim, a typed copy of the same is also prepared by the concerned hospital and provided to the investigating officer within a period of one week. It is essential to do so since though at the time of recording of evidence and trial, the doctor concerned may appear, read and depose about the contents of MLC, when the Court has to read and appreciate it at the stage of consideration of bail or framing of charge, it poses difficulty to the Court;

(viii) Typed copy of MLC may be sent by electronic mode to the IO: The typed MLC can also be sent to the investigating officer through electronic means to save the time of the investigating officer and the concerned hospital; (Para 17)

DELHI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 75 Delhi

Nabal Thakur (In J.C.) Vs. State

BAIL APPLN. 2128 of 2023-Decided on 9-8-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-75-Delhi.pdf

Next Story

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

 

Next Story

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Next Story

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965 – Rule 7 – Refund of Charges – Administrative Order – Statutory Rules – The present writ petition contested an order issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, reintroducing establishment charges under Rule 7 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965, despite their abolition by the Assam Bonded Warehouse (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

The Court held that executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules. Citing the principle established in K. Kuppusamy case, it ruled that until a rule is amended, it remains applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as ultra vires. Regarding refund, relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the Court directed the petitioner to present evidence to the Excise Commissioner, who would determine entitlement to refund within four months, considering whether the petitioner passed on the burden of charges to retailers. (Para 15)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 181 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1649 Gauhati]

M/S Centenary Distilleries P Ltd. Vs. State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

WP(C) 2875 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-181-Gauhati-2.pdf

 

Next Story

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

Land Disputes – Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts – The instant writ petition challenged a judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue concerning a land dispute. The dispute pertained to a plot of land associated with the Dargah of Pir Saheb. The Civil Court in Title Suit No.176/1978 had decreed in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, declaring their right, title, and possession over the land. The State of Assam was restrained from interference. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer issued a Khatian in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, and a new Dag was created. However, the Assam Board of Revenue, in its impugned judgment, disregarded the Civil Court’s decree and cancelled the Khatian issued to the Petitioners’ predecessor.

This action was deemed contrary to established principles, as Civil Court decrees are binding on Revenue Courts. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the Khatian to the Petitioners’ predecessor. (Para 12)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 180 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1648 Gauhati]

Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed Vs. State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 4701 of 2013-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-180-Gauhati.pdf

Recent Articles