Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court held that, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrP.C has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review a Judgment in a Criminal Case, after the Judgement is signed.
Coming down heavily on Police officers for illegally confining a lady for fifteen days, in the garb of investigation against her husband in the complaint filed by her parents accusing him of kidnapping her, The Court has observed that practice of taking witness in custody for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and other officials, to ensure that no religious structure in any form, shall be allowed/ permitted to be raised on public roads which belong to State. The Court has also observed that and if any deviation or disobedience on the part of concerned officials is found in implementation of the directions issued by Court in this regard, they shall be personally responsible and would be held liable for criminal contempt of Court.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court rejected the challenge against vires of Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya. Upholding the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench comprising of Justices V.K. Jhadav and S.S. Shinde also dismissed a petition challenging order of termination of the services of a teacher accused of sexual harassment.
The High court observed that, poverty and illiteracy of the accused needs to kept in view, while sentencing them. Justice A.I.S Cheema disposing the appeal filed by certain labourers convicted for committing dacoity, sustained the conviction recorded by trial Court under Section 395 IPC, but reduced the sentence of four years imprisonment to three years.
The Court, declining to disqualify MLA of Umred Constituency, directed Maharashtra government and Election Commission of India (ECI), to set up a mechanism to quickly start disqualification procedure in cases where any sitting Legislators are convicted in any offence where punishment is over two years.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court has directed Judicial Magistrates of the State to ensure that order for investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC reaches concerned Police stations forthwith, without delay, to avoid inordinate in starting police investigation. Justices Sankar Acharyya and Aniruddha Bose made this observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a person convicted for rape.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Olympic medalist Sushil Kumar challenging the selection of NarsinghPancham Yadav by Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) for the 74 kg Men’s Freestyle Wrestling event at the Rio Olympics Games 2016 commencing 5th August, 2016. The Court also dismissed Sushil’s prayer to direct WFI to conduct a selection trial, holding that it is untenable in law as well as contrary to facts.
The High Court held that no service tax under Section 66read with Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act could be charged in respect of composite contracts entered into with builders, since neither the Act nor Rules provide for a machinery provision for excluding all components other than service components for ascertaining the measure of service tax.
Gujarat High court
Gujarat High Court allowed a revision Petition filed by CBI against the passed by Special Judge, CBI whereby, the certified copy of the entire charge sheet of IshratJahan case was ordered to be given to IPS officer Satish Verma who was part of the investigation team which investigated the Case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that reservation provided under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) is not available on promotion.
Kerala High Court
A Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justice K.T Sankaran and Justice A.Hariprasad on Monday recused itself forthwith, from hearing Habeas Corpus (preventive detention) matters relating to COFEPOSA cases. The decision was taken after it was found that one of the relatives of an accused, had offered a huge sum as bribe, to one of the Judges, with an alleged attempt to elicit a favorable decision/to cause undue influence in one of the cases, posted before the division bench as per the rooster.
The High Court on Friday stayed the order of ban by NGT on usage of diesel vehicles of above 10 years across corporation areas in Kerala. The National Green Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Kochi, had by its order dated 23/06/16, had stayed the usage of such vehicles and also prevented the registration of new diesel vehicles above 2000 cc across the state.
High Court of Kerala speaking through Justice Muhamed Mustaque ruled that a child has every right to get promotion, even in a unaided minority institution up to elementary education level.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court declared Section 5(2) and Section 20 of Maharaja Ranjit Singh State Technical University (MRSSTU) Act 2014 as unconstitutional. The Court held that Section 5(2) violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India while Section 20 is violative of the provisions of Punjab Technical University (PTU) Act, 1996 itself besides impinging upon the financial autonomy of the Punjab Technical University .
The Court held that criminal proceedings against an accused under Section 304 cannot be quashed by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of settlement/compromise arrived at between the accused and the legal heirs/representatives of the person who has lost his life in the accident. The division bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Grover and Lisa Gill also observed that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is not private in nature and answered the reference to it in negative.
The High Court held a provision of Punjab Excise policy as invalid and inoperative. The Court said that for testing the correctness of a policy the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the Courts.
Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand High Court recently held that a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the Acts.