Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: July 15 - July 21, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 112-116]Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha v. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 112XXX vs The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113Budhuwa Oraon V. .Ghura Oraon 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 114 Ravi Shankar Mishra vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs And ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 115Shankar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 116Judgements/Orders This WeekS. 65-B Of Indian Evidence Act Only Pertains To Production Of Electronic Records, Not Physical Documents: Jharkhand High Court ClarifiesCase Title- Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha v. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors.LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 112The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the presentation of electronic evidence, and not physical documents.Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, presiding over the case observed, “Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is mainly for the purpose of treating the document as secondary evidence depending upon the availability of the conditions mentioned therein. … Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence. One of the provisions of Section 65-B, particularly under Section 65-B(4), is that while accepting the electronic device, a certification is to be given by its custodian,” Justice Prasad added.'Unbecoming' Of Police Personnel To Be In Live-In Relationship Despite Being Married: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Constable's DismissalCase Title: XXX vs The State Of JharkhandLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was involved in a live-in relationship with another woman. The Court stated that such behaviour is inappropriate for a police officer and violates the rules governing his service conditions.Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, ruled, "It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed."Parties May Adduce Necessary Documentary Evidence At Later Stage If Sufficient Ground For Delay Shown: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Budhuwa Oraon V. .Ghura OraonLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 114The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that documentary evidence not submitted at the time of filing a written statement may be introduced at subsequent stages of a suit, provided due diligence was exercised in their production.Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The learned trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff has not considered this legal position that if the documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, the same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessary for the adjudication of the issues between the parties. Even after the deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC, the parties may adduce the evidence at later stage of suit showing the sufficient ground not producing them at the time of filing suit or at the time of filing written statement.”CRPF Commandant Who Suffered 75% Disability In Naxal Operation Should Not Be Deprived Of Seniority Due To Authorities' Inaction: Jharkhand HCCase Title: Ravi Shankar Mishra vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs And orsLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 115In a recent judgement concerning the seniority of a CRPF Commandant who survived a Naxal attack and sustained 75% disability, the Jharkhand High Court while ruling in favour of the petitioner, has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner's seniority. The Commandant was initially denied seniority due to not meeting the required medical category for promotion, attributed to disabilities incurred during the Naxal attack.Justice SN Pathak, presiding over the case, emphasized, “the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Commandant w.e.f. 10.08.2022, the date on which his batchmates and juniors have been promoted as the medical board, which was due on 10.08.2022, was not held on time due to which the petitioner's medical category could not be determined...other than this, the para 4.13 and 4.16 clearly suggest that as and when the officers regain the SHAPE –I Medical Category, they will be promoted as per the recommendation of the DPC, but they will not be entitled for back wages.”Mere Delay In Execution Of Work Not Criminal Breach Of Trust, Particularly In Absence Of Agreement Stipulating Time Frame: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Shankar Singh V. The State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 116The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of two individuals charged with criminal breach of trust, ruling that mere delay in the execution of work does not constitute criminal breach of trust, especially in the absence of an agreement specifying a time...

Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: July 15 - July 21, 2024

Bhavya Singh

Tags