Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 - August 14, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXSalimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 316 Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317 Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/S Pgvcl Through The Deputy Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318 Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S Managing Director/ General Manager (Legal Cell) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319 Shambhubhai Devrajbhai Jaru V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 320 Bipinchandra Babulal Thakkar V/S Govindbhai M Prajapati 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 321 Minalben Satishbhai Solanki V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 322 Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 323 Idea Cellular Limited & 1 Other(S) V/S Union Of India Thro Director & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 324 Dipakkumar Nathabhai Patel V/S Narmadaben Dhirajlal Radadia & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 325 Jayesh Manharlal Gandhi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 326 Chief Executive & 1 Other(S) V/S Vanjibhai Laljibhai Chaudhary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 327Orders/Judgments of the weekGujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 62 Yrs Old POCSO Accused Citing "Improvements" In Minor Prosecutrix's Version Case Title: Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir V/S State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 316 The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old, accused of sexuall assaulting a 17 years old after intoxicating her. The man was booked under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act. While granting relief, the High Court took into account several factors such as improvement in Prosecutrix's version, subsequent conduct of the accused, etc. Court Must Be Satisfied Of Prima Facie Case Against Accused While Framing Charges, Reasons Not To Be Recorded: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Ajitsingh Jagan Singh Yaduvanshi V/S State Of Gujarat Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 317 The Gujarat High Court has held that only a prima facie involvement of the accused in an alleged crime is required for framing of charges and the Court need not make an evaluation of evidence or record reasons for the same. Justice Samir Dave referred to Omwati Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 2001 AAR 394 (SC) to reiterate the circumstances in which the Court may discharge the Accused: "(i) If upon consideration that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. (ii) Where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage." Electricity Connection Cannot Be Denied Only Because Dispute Regarding Ownership Of Land Is Pending: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya V/S Pgvcl Through The Deputy Engineer Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 318 The Gujarat High Court has clarified that occupiers of a land cannot be denied electricity connection only because a dispute regarding ownership of the land is pending. Justice AS Supehia referred to a division bench judgment stating that right and title and ownership or right of occupancy has no nexus with grant of electrical connection to a consumer. Electricity Company Does Not Require Landowner's Consent For Laying Down Overhead Transmission Lines: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Parth Krishnkant Patel V/S Managing Director/ General Manager (Legal Cell) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 319 The Gujarat High Court has held that an electricity company does not require the consent of a private landowner to lay overhead high tension transmission lines and that at most, such landowner may claim compensation for any damage that may be sustained during the process. A single Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav heavily relied on a division bench judgment in Gujarat State Electricity Transmission Corporation Ltd., Vs. Ratilal Maganji Brahmbhatt which held that: "The Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment, with a specific purpose of providing electricity to a large number of people, across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development in all walks of life. Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right has to yield to the Articles 14 and 21 respectively of the Constitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals, enshrined in the basic structure of the ...

Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 - August 14, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags