Punjab And Haryana High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 108 Orders/Judgments]

As we step into 2022, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly Round-up of important updates from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This yearly digest includes 108 orders and judgments, divided into 14 different subject heads.Cases related to Criminal Law 1.WhatsApp Message Has No Evidentiary Value Without Certificate Under Section 65B(4) Evidence Act : Punjab & Haryana High Court [Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union Of India] A single bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur, while deciding a bail application in a case under the NDPS Act, observed that WhatsApp messages will have no evidentiary value unless they are certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. To oppose the bail application, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had relied on certain alleged WhatsApp chats of the accused. The NCB submitted that screenshots of WhatsApp messages connected the petitioner with the contraband. However, the Court asked if such messages are accompanied with Section 65B certificate. On getting a negative reply, the bench observed: "The recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. KailashKushanrao Gorantyal and others (2020) 7 SCC 1 has held that a certificate Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic record. Therefore, the said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date". 2.Widow Convicted In A Murder Case Eligible For Family Pension Since The Case Doesn't Relate To Husband's Death: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Baljinder Kaur v. State of Haryana & Ors.] A Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia ruled that family pension to a Widow cannot be denied on account of her conviction (for the offence of murder), which is unrelated to the death of her husband. It said, "It is not disputed that the petitioner-widow has committed the offence of murder and is on bail and her sentence has been suspended and, therefore, she requires to maintain herself and cannot be denied the financial assistance and it is not a bounty, as such, and is her right on account of the services rendered by her husband to the Government." The Authorities in this case cited her conduct to deny pensionary benefits to her. It was stated that she had been convicted by the Court and, therefore, pecuniary benefits could not be extended to her on both accounts monthly financial assistance and the liability of family pension. 3.While Declining Bail To Juvenile Take Into Account Social Investigation Report & Not Merely Police Report: P&H High Court Directs JJ Boards [X v. State of Punjab] A Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur directed the Juvenile Justice Boards across the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh decision to grant/ decline bail to a juvenile shall be founded on the basis of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer and any other material available before the Board and not merely on the basis of records of the case and report filed under Section 173 CrPC of the investigation officer. It may be noted that as per Section 13 (1) (ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, the Probation Officer has to be informed as soon as the child is apprehended and to prepare a social investigation report. The JJ Board calls for a Social Investigation Report, which has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. This report becomes vital for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17and 18 of this Act.4.Parallel Inquiry During Investigation/After Submission Of Final Report: P&H High Court Quashes Govt's Direction [Pankaj Kumar @ Panki v. State of Punjab & Anr.] While declining the bail pleas of two accused in separate cases, a Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj ruled that holding of simultaneous inquiry, either during investigation or post submission of final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C is incomprehensible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It directed the police department of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh not to hold a simultaneous inquiry in criminal matters and further quashed the instructions of the Director Bureau of Investigation of Punjab issued in 2017.5. U-Turn By Prosecutrix Before Court Not Enough To Grant Bail To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana] While hearing the bail plea of a rape accused, a Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "U-turn" by the prosecutrix before the trial Court is not a ground to grant relief. It observed that merely because the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the Court, it is not enough to grant bail. The Bench further observed that it will be for the Police authorities to investigate the change in stance of the prosecutrix. 6.Social Investigation Report Must Be Considered...

Punjab And Haryana High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 108 Orders/Judgments]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags