REFUSAL TO GIVE TEA NOT SUDDEN OR GRAVE PROVOCATION: BOMBAY HC - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

REFUSAL TO GIVE TEA NOT SUDDEN OR GRAVE PROVOCATION: BOMBAY HC

Published

on

Bombay High Court

In an enduring, empowering, enlightening, enriching and encouraging judgment for women titled Santosh Mahadev Atkar vs The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2019 delivered recently on February 2, 2021, the Bombay High Court has observed that the medieval notion of the wife being the ‘property of the husband to do as he wishes, still persists’. The Bombay High Court thus refused to show any leniency to a man convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A single Judge Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere held clearly, cogently and convincingly that the husband’s contention that his wife, by refusing to make tea, offered a grave and sudden provocation to be “ludicrous”, “clearly untenable and unsustainable”. It must be mentioned here categorically, clearly and cogently that the wife, struck by her husband with a hammer for suspecting her character and refusing to make tea had eventually succumbed to her injuries.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 2 of this learned, latest, laudable and landmark judgment by first and foremost observing that, “The appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 1st July 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No. 13/2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant as under :

– for the offence punishable under 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months;

– for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

Both the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.”

To put things in perspective, it is then stated in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “A few facts as are necessary to decide the case are as under :

The appellant is the husband, who was married to Manisha (deceased) on 15th December 2005. From the said wedlock, the appellant and Manisha were blessed with a daughter-Rohini. The appellant and Manisha were residing in the Servants’ Quarters of Vitthal Hospital at Pandharpur along with the appellant’s mother, who was serving in the said Hospital. According to the prosecution, the appellant was suspecting Manisha’s character, as a result of which, there used to be frequent quarrels between them. The incident is stated to have taken place on 19th December 2013 at about 6:00 a.m. It is the prosecution case that Manisha was leaving the house on the said date and time, without preparing tea, on account of which, there was exchange of words between the appellant and deceased Manisha. As the appellant was suspecting Manisha’s character and as she refused to make tea for the appellant, the appellant is alleged to have given a blow on Manisha’s head from behind, with a hammer. The said incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Rohini (appellant and Manisha’s daughter), who, at the relevant time, was aged 6 years. It is the prosecution case that soon after Manisha was assaulted, the appellant gave her a bath, wiped the blood-stains from the spot and thereafter took Manisha to Vitthal Hospital. As Manisha’s condition was critical, the doctor who treated Manisha asked the appellant to shift Manisha to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. Pursuant thereto, Manisha was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. Throughout, Manisha’s condition was critical and she was unable to speak and eventually on 25th December 2013, Manisha succumbed to her injury.

In the meantime, i.e. on 19th December 2013, Manisha’s uncle Macchindra Waghmare (PW 4), on learning that Manisha was admitted to the hospital, immediately rushed to the hospital i.e. Vitthal Hospital, where the appellant informed Macchindra that he had assaulted Manisha. Pursuant thereto, Macchindra Waghmare (PW 4) lodged a complaint with the Pandharpur Police Station. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced, statements of witnesses were recorded, panchanamas were drawn and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed as against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Magistrate at Pandharpur.

The said offence being Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Pandharpur. Charge was framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses. Thereafter, Section 313 statement of the appellant was recorded. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence as stated in para 2 hereinabove.”

As it turned out, after hearing both the parties, Justice Revati then observed in para 6 that, “Perused the papers. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P at length and after considering the submissions canvassed by them and after perusing the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order, for the reasons set-out hereunder; As noted above, the prosecution allegation as against the appellant is that the appellant would suspect the character of his wifeManisha. The said fact is borne out from the evidence of PW 4- Macchindra (Manisha’s uncle, who is the first informant in the said case) as well as the evidence of PW 6-Nandabai (Manisha’s mother). Both the said witnesses have categorically in their evidence stated about the ill-treatment meted out by the appellant to Manisha i.e. of suspecting her character and of physical assault. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 19th December 2013 at about 6:00 a.m. at the Servants’ Quarter, where the appellant was staying with Manisha and their daughter Rohini. The said Servants’ Quarter belonged to the appellant’s mother, who was working in the hospital. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the appellant’s mother was not present in the house. As noted above, there is also an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 4- Macchindra, PW 6-Nandabai and PW 7-Dr. Dhotre (Medical Officer at Vitthal Hospital, Pandharpur).”

To be sure, it is then stated in para 7 that, “Coming to the evidence on record with respect to ill-treatment meted out by the applicant to Manisha and the extra-judicial confession made by the applicant, the relevant witnesses in this regard are PW 4- Macchindra and PW 6-Nandabai. As far as PW 4-Macchindra’s evidence is concerned, he has stated that deceased-Manisha was his niece; that she was married to the appellant on 15th December 2005; that they were living in a Servants’ Quarter of Vitthal Hospital for about 3 years prior to the incident; that Rohini (appellant and Manisha’s daughter) was also residing with them; that the appellant was suspecting Manisha’s character and would quarrel with her on account of the same and that on 19th December 2013, the appellant assaulted Manisha on her head, resulting in serious injuries, pursuant to which, the appellant admitted Manisha to Vitthal Hospital. PW 4-Macchindra has further stated that Manisha was shifted from Vitthal Hospital to Civil Hospital, as she was seriously injured. He has stated that Manisha was unconscious and had sustained injuries on her head. He has further stated that when he questioned the appellant as to what had happened, the appellant disclosed to him that at 6:00 a.m, he had asked Manisha to prepare tea and that when she refused to prepare tea, he assaulted her with a hammer on her head, pursuant to which, he brought her to the Civil Hospital. PW 4-Macchindra, on the basis of the said disclosure made by the appellant, lodged a complaint/FIR, as against the appellant with the Pandharpur Police Station. The said FIR is at Exhibit-23. Although several suggestions were made to the said witness, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the said witness. A suggestion was also made to the said witness that the deceased fell, as a result of which, she sustained an injury on her head, which suggestion was denied by the witness. It was also brought on record that the appellant had filed a complaint against the said witness and Manisha’s parents in 2010, as a result of which, they were falsely implicating him in the said case, which suggestion was also denied by the said witness.”

Be it noted, it is then enunciated in para 8 that, “The evidence of PW 6-Nandabai (Manisha’s mother) is similar to the evidence of PW 4-Macchindra with respect to the ill-treatment meted out by the appellant to her daughter-Manisha i.e. the appellant used to suspect Manisha’s character; would quarrel with her and also assault her. PW 6-Nandabai has stated that when she, along with others, visited the Civil Hospital, Solapur, they learnt that Manisha was serious; that she was not opening her eyes nor could she talk. She has stated that when she asked the appellant what had happened, the appellant disclosed that in the morning at 6:00 a.m, as Manisha had not given him tea and as he suspected her character, he hit her on her head, resulting in Manisha sustaining an injury. Again, nothing material is brought in the cross-examination, so as to disbelieve or discredit this witness. The suggestions made to the said witness i.e. PW 6-Nandabai have been categorically denied by her i.e. that Manisha was injured in an accident; that no such disclosure was made by the appellant to her; and that they had lodged a false complaint against him because of an earlier complaint lodged by the appellant against them in 2010. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant would suspect Manisha’s character and that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession to PW 4-Macchindra and PW 6-Nandabai that he had assaulted Manisha.”

It is also really worth noting that it is then observed in para 9 that, “It is pertinent to note that the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW 4-Macchindra and PW 6-Nandabai is, duly corroborated by an independent witness i.e. PW 7- Dr. Bajrang Dhotre.

PW 7- Dr. Dhotre was working as a Medical Officer at Vitthal Hospital, Pandharpur at the relevant time. He has stated that on 19th December 2013 at about 7:00 a.m., Manisha was admitted in the hospital; that when he examined her, he found that she was in a serious condition, as she had suffered heavy bleeding. He had stated that the said patient was brought by Santosh Atkar (appellant). He has further stated that the appellant informed him i.e. gave history that he had hit Manisha at 6:30 a.m. in the morning with a hammer at the residential quarters of Vitthal Hospital. PW 7-Dr. Dhotre has stated that the said history given by the appellant was reduced into writing by him in the appellant’s words. PW 7-Dr. Dhotre has identified his handwriting on the case papers which are exhibited at Exhibit-28. Exhibit 28 i.e. case papers of Manisha read as under :

“Patient brought by Mr. Santosh Mahadeo Aatkar c alleged history an assault, he hited by hammer (हातोडा), today morning at about 6:30 A.M.; at Vitthal Hospital residence quarters.”

PW 7- Dr. Dhotre found the following injuries on Manisha :

i) C.L.W. measuring 4 Cms. X 3.5 Cms., oozing of blood was present. It was present at left parietal region, 5 Cms. away from the midline, and was placed anterio posteriorely. On clinical examination it was depressed fracture of skull.

ii) C.L.W. measuring 3 X 1 Cm. was vertical in direction, was muscle deep and blood mark was present. It was situated at medial aspect of left forearm in its lower 1/3rd part.

iii) C.L.W. measuring 2 X 0.5 Cm. was vertical in direction, and blood mark was present, and was at medial to injury No.2 and it was parallel to it.

iv) C.L.W. measuring 1 X 0.5 Cm. was horizontal in direction, and blood mark was present and was at dorsum of left little finger on its terminal part of 1st digit.

v) Haematoma measuring 5 X 3 Cms. was tender and was at dorsum of right hand.

vi) Abrasion 2 X 1 Cm. was read in colour and was at right patellor region. It is simple in nature.

All injuries are within 6 hours old. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 was caused by hard and blunt and hard and rough object. Injury Nos. 5 and 6 are caused by hard and rough object.”

PW 7-Dr. Dhotre advised CT-Scan of the patient-Manisha and asked her to be shifted to a higher center for further treatment, pursuant to which, Manisha was taken to the Civil Hospital at Solapur. Thus, the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to PW 4-Macchindra and PW 6- Nandabai is duly corroborated by PW 7-Dr. Dhotre and is supported by Exhibit 28 i.e. the case papers. It appears that after Manisha was shifted to the Civil Hospital at Solapur, efforts were made by the police to record her statement, however, she was not found in a condition to record her statement. On 25th December 2013, Manisha succumbed to her injuries. The cause of death was stated to be head injury. Column 19 of the postmortem report reveals the following internal injuries :

“(i) Underscalp haematoma present over left side fronto parieto tempora occipital region size 13 cm x 7 cm;

(ii) Comminuted depressed fracture of left parietal bone of size 4 cm x 3.5 cm;

(iii) – Extradural haematoma present over left parietal region about 50 gms,

– Subdural haematoma present all over brain about 100 gms;

– Subarachnoid haemorrhage present all over brain surface as think blood film,

– Meninges torn,

– Brain congested & ocetomatovy.””

Needless to say, it is then stated in para 10 that, “Thus, it appears that the appellant assaulted Manisha on her head with a hammer from behind, resulting in a grievous injury on the head and other injuries on her person. The situs of injury is consistent with the evidence on record.”

As we see, Justice Revati then mentions in para 14 that, “Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madanlal vs. State of Punjab [1992 Supp (2) SCC 233] . He submitted that in the said case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part (II) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 4 years. He submitted that as the accused’s act was a result of grave and sudden provocation, his sentence was reduced to the period undergone. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the appellant in the present case, acted under grave and sudden provocation, the appellant’s sentence also be reduced to the period undergone by him.”

More appropriately, Justice Revati then while making the right reasoning points out in para 15 that, “A perusal of the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is clearly distinguishable and has no bearing on the facts in the present case. The case before the Apex Court was that the appellant therein, had caused serious injury to the deceased with a handle of a pump; the motive of the crime was that the accused therein was hungry for 3 days and when he asked for food from the deceased Sewadar of the `Dera’ where free food was being supplied, the deceased refused and consequently, the appellant, in a fit of anger, attacked the deceased on being deprived of the power of self control. Admittedly, in that case, the appellant and the deceased were not known to each other and the motive was hunger for 3 days. In the present case, the appellant was suspecting his wife’s character and would assault her on account of the same. On the day of the incident on being refused tea, the appellant assaulted Manisha with a hammer. The deceased-Manisha, by refusing to make tea for the appellant, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have offered grave and sudden provocation for the appellant to assault her, much less, such a brutal assault.”

Most significantly and most remarkably, what forms the cornerstone and bedrock of this judgment is then waxed eloquently, elegantly and effectively as stated in para 16 that, “It would not be out of place to observe that a wife is not a chattel or an object. Marriage ideally is a partnership based on equality. More often than not, it is far from that. Cases such as these, are not uncommon. Such cases, reflect the imbalance of gender – skewed patriarchy, the socio-cultural milieu one has grown up in, which often seeps into a marital relationship. There is imbalance of gender roles, where wife as a homemaker is expected to do all the household chores. Emotional labour in a marriage is also expected to be done by the wife. Coupled with these imbalances in the equation, is the imbalance of expectation and subjugation. Social conditions of women also make them handover themselves to their spouses. Thus, men, in such cases, consider themselves as primary partners and their wives, `chattel’. To quote from a study, ‘The Man Who Mistook His Wife For Chattel’ by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly:

“by `proprietary’, we mean first that men lay claim to particular women as songbirds lay claim to territories, as lions lay claim to a kill, or as people of both sexes lay claim to valuables. Having located an individually recognizable and potentially defensible resource packet, the proprietary creature proceeds to advertise and exercise the intention of defending it from rivals. Proprietariness has the further implication, possibly peculiar to the human case, of a sense of right or entitlement”.

This medieval notion of the wife being the property of the husband to do as he wishes, unfortunately, still persists in the majority mindset. Nothing but notions of patriarchy. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased by refusing to make tea for the appellant offered grave and sudden provocation, is ludicrous, clearly untenable and unsustainable and as such deserves to be rejected. In the facts, the appellant not only assaulted his wife, but also after assaulting her, wasted precious and crucial time i.e. around one hour, in covering his act by destroying evidence, by wiping the blood from the spot and bathing Manisha before taking her to the hospital. If the appellant had rushed Manisha to the hospital, soon after the incident, possibly her life could have been saved and Rohini would not have lost her mother.”

Finally and as a corollary, it is then stated by Justice Revati in para 17 that, “Considering the overwhelming evidence on record pointing to the complicity, no infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences mentioned in para 2 hereinabove. The facts on record also do not warrant any reduction in the sentence awarded to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

On an unflattering note, it must be stated quite uprightly that Justice Revati Mohite Dere has written a very bold, brilliant, brief, balanced and blunt judgment which makes it absolutely clear in no uncertain terms that violence by a husband against her wife cannot be justified on the pretext of grave and sudden provocation as cited here which simply does not hold any water! This alone explains why Justice Revati has rightly termed in her 19-page order that the husband’s contention that his wife by refusing to make tea offered a grave and sudden provocation was “ludicrous”, “clearly untenable and unsustainable”. Very rightly so! It is a worth emulating judgment in similar such cases!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

PUNJAB & HARYANA HC GRANTS BAIL TO MAN BOOKED UNDER POSCO ACT ON CHARGES BY WIFE REGARDING INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE WHEN SHE WAS A MINOR

Published

on

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Dinesh Versus State of Haryana observed and has recently granted a regular bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act after the complainant, the petitioner wife, accused him of penetrative sexual assault in an incident that allegedly took place prior to their marriage, when the petitioner wife was still a minor.

The bench comprising of Justice Vikas Bahl observed that no date of the alleged incident has been mentioned in the FIR and it was registered after the petitioner moved a plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the bench noted that the FIR was registered after much delay.

It was observed that the FIR was registered under Sections 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 506, 376(2) (N), 323, 328 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court noted that no date of incident has been mentioned in the FIR and the said FIR has been registered after filing of the petition by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Prima facie, it also appears that after much delay, the FIR has been registered.

Further, the Court observed that the affidavit suggests that the complainant married the petitioner without coercion or pressure and also the Aadhaar Card that suggests her to have attained the majority age at the time of her marriage.

The bench after considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other matter and prosecution is to take time and also that the co-accused Yogesh has been granted interim protection. It was stated that this court deemed it fit to extent the relief of regular bail to the petitioner. It observed that since 07.12.2021, the petitioner has been in custody and there are 22 prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined. Therefore, the trial is likely to take time.

Moreover, the court allowed the instant petition and released the petitioner on regular basis subject to its cancellation if he threatens or influences the witness.

The present petition is allowed by the court, while keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court or Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case. In the present case, it is made clear, the petitioner threatens or influences any witness, it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of the present regular bail granted to the petitioner by the court.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off in above terms.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Allahabad High Court refuses to quash case against government, madrasa teachers allegedly found with cow meat, 16 live cattle stock

Published

on

The Allahabad High Court in the case Parvez Ahmad And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another observed and refused to quash the criminal case against a government teacher and a madrasa teacher from whose alleged possession cow meat (beef) and 16 live cattle were recovered.

The bench comprising of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the First Information Report (FIR) that prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants and thus, no case was made out against them, to quash the case.

Facts of the Case:

In the present matter, the court was dealing with the 482 CrPC plea filed by 4 applicants booked under Sections 153- A, Section 420, Section 429, Section 188, Section 269, Section 270, Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 and section 7/8 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, plea seeking to quash the case.

An Assistant teacher, Applicant no. 1 in the education department of the State. As Assistant Teacher, the applicant no. 2 is also working in the Madrasa Darul Ulum Gausia Kasba Salempur. A medical shop is run by the applicant no. 3 and applicant no. 4 is Hafiz Quran.

It was observed that their submission that a report from the Forensic Investigation Laboratory had received did not disclose that the sample sent for analysis was of the cow. Their case was case that no case under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was made out.

It was argued by the State counsel that the FIR is a detailed report, the FIR which categorically mentioned that out of 16 live cattle stock which included 7 buffaloes, 1 cow, 2 female buffalo’s calf, 5 male buffalo’s calf, and one male cow-calf.

It was further argued by the state that it was wrong to say that the FSL report gave a clean chit to the applicants. Moreover, as 16 cattle were found in the possession of the applicants and other co-accused and they were not having any license to run the slaughterhouse.

Court Analysis:

The argument of the Applicant was discarded by the Court on the ground that no offence was made out from the reading of the First Information Report. It was underscored by the court that even though the FSL report had revealed that the sample which was sent for chemical analysis was not cow meat, but from the custody of the applicants and another co-accused, 16 live cattle were also recovered.

The court observing that defence regarding the FSL report shall be considered by the trial court as such defence set up in the present application cannot be considered at this stage by this Court, at the stage of quashing of the charge sheet

Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

MP HIGH COURT SEEKS DGP’S REPLY: DOES POLICE’S FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE FULL CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO MISCONDUCT, INTERFERENCE WITH JUSTICE?

Published

on

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Kuldeep Dohare Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh observed, recently the Gwalior bench directed the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh to file an affidavit explaining as to whether non-communication of criminal antecedents of an Applicant or Accused to the Court is a minor misconduct or if it amounts to interference with the criminal justice dispensation system. Before the next date of hearing, the affidavit is to be filled.

The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed and remarked that the court was frequently finding that the police authorities were not sending the complete criminal antecedents, in spite of the circular issued by Police Headquarters.

It was observed that the police authorities did not send the criminal antecedents of the applicant. Furthermore, it is clear that it is a clear attempt to facilitate the applicant to obtain bail by projecting that he has no criminal antecedents. The issue raised is weather the conduct of police officers can be said to be a minor negligence or it is an interference with the criminal justice dispensation system?

In the present case, the court was dealing with a bail application moved by the accused applicant for offences punishable under section 307, Section 149, section 148, section 147, section 506, section 294, section 201. On an earlier hearing, the court had observed that even though the case diary did not reflect any criminal antecedents on the part of the Applicant. The impugned order passed by the lower court rejecting his bail application mentioned otherwise.

It was observed that a reply was sought by the court from the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind as to why the important information with regard to the criminal antecedents of the Applicant were withheld by the respective SHO. The SP informed the Court on the subsequent hearing that the SHO concerned as well as the Investigating Officer in the case were found guilty of misconduct and were fined with Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000, respectively.

The Court observed that since the problem was stemming from different police stations. However, the DGP should file his reply regarding the prevailing situation-

Since in different police station, this situation is prevailing. Therefore, an affidavit is directed to be filled by the DGP, State of Madhya Pradesh as to whether non- communication of criminal antecedents of an applicant is a minor misconduct or it amounts to interfere with the criminal antecedents of justice dispensation system.

Accordingly, the affidavit needs to be filled within a period of 1 week, the matter would be heard next on 08.07.2022.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT APPLIES TO ARBITRATION REFERENCE UNDER NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT, 1956

Published

on

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors observed and stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to reference to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Purushiandra Kumar Kaurav observed and reiterated that since no limitation is provided under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act. The bench stated that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to such proceedings.

Therefore, the court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the decision of the competent authority before the arbitrator from the date of expiry of 90 days is three years from the decision of the competent authority.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner, Mr. Ghanshyam Gupta was the landowner of the land which was acquired by the Respondent, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. Thereafter, the competent authority determined the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner and passed an award to that effect on 30.07.2015.

The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the competent authority. On 04.12.2019, an appeal was filled by the petitioner before the arbitrator. The appeal was dismissed by the arbitrator as time-barred filed after the expiry of three years limitation period.

the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, Aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator.

Contentions Raised by the Parties:

It is stated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to arbitration reference under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

It was observed that the petitioner was unaware of the availability of the remedy of appeal against the decision of the competent authority, the petitioner only after consulting his lawyer, that the petitioner came to know that he could seek enhancement. Further, there is a valid ground to condone the delay.

The submissions of the petitioner were countered by the Respondent on the following grounds:

Though, in the absence of a period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956, it was construed that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable.

It was stated that Article 137 provides for 3 years period, and the petitioner filed the appeal after a delay of 4 years.

COURT ANALYSIS:

The court observed and stated that since no limitation is provided under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply to such proceedings.

Therefore, the court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the decision of the competent authority before the arbitrator from the date of expiry of 90 days is three years from the decision of the competent authority.

The court observed that there is nothing in the National Highways Act that excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to reference to arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the arbitrator has the power to condone the delay against the award, in filing an appeal by the competent authority.

The court noted that the petitioner was not aware that an appeal could be filed against the decision of the Competent Authority and it is only after consulting his lawyer that the petitioner came aware of any such right, therefore, there is sufficient reason to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the application was allowed by the court and the court directed the arbitrator to decide the case of the petitioner on merit.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

KERALA HIGH COURT APPOINTS AMICUS CURIAE IN SARITHA NAIR’S PLEA; IS A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 164 CRPC A PUBLIC DOCUMENT?

Published

on

The Kerala High Court in the case Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India & Anr observed and appointed an amicus curia to assist the court to decide the legal question of whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC is a public document.

The bench comprising of Justice Kauser Edappagath appointed the amicus curiae, in the petition filled by Saritha S. Nair, the prime accused in the infamous solar panel scam seeking a direction to provide her with copies of the Section 164 statement given by Swapna Suresh, the accused in the gold smuggling case.

The court appointed Advocate K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, as the amicus curiae in the case.

In the present case, it was observed that Saritha Nair is accused of having duped several influential people to the tune of 70 lakhs, by offering to install solar power units for them or by making them business partners and by receiving advance payments for the same.

Moreover, Swapna Suresh is accused of smuggling 30 kilograms of gold through diplomatic cargo dispatched to UAE Consulate at Thiruvananthapuram.

It was observed that when the petition came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate B.A Aloor appearing that the statement given by Swapna was a public document and therefore the petitioner was entitled to get a copy.

Further, Nair approached the Court apprehending that certain allegation may have been brought on record against her in the statement given by Suresh. It was prayed by Nair, that the c court allow her plea, directing the production of certified copies of the said document to her, failing which she would sustain an irreparable injury, the hardship and as well as physical and mental agony.

It was observed that the Nair had had initially moved the Principal District and Sessions Court of Ernakulam, with the same request, but this was denied. The court noted and adjourned the matter to July 11, while on a petition filed by the accuse, Saritha S. Nair in the solar scam cases, for seeking a directive to provide a copy of the statement given by Swapna Suresh, accused in the diplomatic gold smuggling case before a subordinate court.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court issues notice in an SLP; can section 156 (3) CRPC be invoked after failing to get desired relief in a civil suit?

It was observed that before the Calcutta High Court, it was contended by the accused that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC fails to make out any offence against them. Further, it was submitted that a frustrated unsuccessful litigant before the Civil Court has approached the Criminal Court and the Criminal Investigation.

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Usha Chakraborty vs State of West Bengal observed and issued a notice in a Special Leave Petition filled, raising an issue whether in a dispute essentially in a dispute of civil nature that can a person, after having failed to get the desired relief from a civil suit, invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

In the present case, an FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 323, Section 384, Section 406, Section 423, Section 467, Section 468, Section 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 following an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

It was observed that before the Calcutta High Court, it was contended by the accused that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC fails to make out any offence against them. Further, it was submitted that a frustrated unsuccessful litigant before the Civil Court has approached the Criminal Court and the Criminal Investigation, which has commenced, is for the purposes of throttling them. The petition was dismissed by the High Court observing that the materials which have already been collected by the Investigating Agency, prima facie, make out a case for investigation. The issue raised before the court was weather the same would make out an offence after the investigation is concluded is absolutely at the end of the investigation to be analysed.

Therefore, challenging this order, one of the accused approached the Apex Court. However, It was submitted that the dispute is essentially of civil nature, for which the applicant in Section 156(3) CrPC petition filed a civil suit but having failed to get the desired relief, he invoked Section 156(3) CrPC.

The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and the Justice JB Pardiwala, while issuing notice also stayed further proceedings in FIR lodged against the accused.

Continue Reading

Trending