SUPREME COURT TRANSFERS BIHAR MUZAFFARPUR SHELTER HOME RAPE CASE

A bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, on Thursday ordered the transfer of the Muzaffarpur shelter home sexual assault case from Bihar to a Saket  court in New Delhi and slammed the state government for its management of shelter homes. also directed the POCSO court to complete trial within six month.

 The apex court also rapped the CBI for transferring its officer probing the sexual assault case and said it amounted to a violation of its order. 

The bench asked the CBI to file an affidavit giving an explanation. "Enough is enough. Children cannot be treated like this. You cannot let your officers treat children this way. Spare the children," the top court told the Bihar government. 

It said the court will summon the chief secretary if the state fails to give all information sought by the court.

ARREST IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 46 (4) OF THE Cr.P.C IS ILLEGAL

Mumbai high court in case of kavita manikikar vs CBI,   (WP 1142/2018) decided on 2/5/18 held that arrest in violation of section 46 (4) Cr.P.C. is illegal and awarded compensation of 50000 Rs to the petitioner and also directed the Government to initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officers. The Government is also given the liberty to recover the amount awarded from the erring police officers.

Fixing Different Age of Superannuation Based On Ranks In CRPF, ITBP, BSF Unconstitutional: Delhi HC

A Division bench comprising Justice S.Muraleedhar and Sanjeev Narula held that there appears to be no justification in discriminating amongst the CAPFs particularly when the retirement age of all members of the CISF and AR is 60 years and whereas the retirement age of those of the rank of Commandant and below in BSF, CRPF, SSB and ITBP is 57 years and declared declared that the fixing of the age of superannuation of members of the ranks of Commandant and below in the ITBP, CRPF, BSF and SSB different from those in the ranks above that of the Commandant is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Accordingly a direction is hereby issued that within a period of four months from today the Respondents i.e. the MHA in consultation with the CAPFs concerned will take all consequential steps by way of implementation of this judgment. This will include arriving at a decision as regards the retirement age which will uniform for all members of the CAPFs irrespective of their rank thus bringing all of them, including the CISF and the AR, on par and fixing the date from which such changed retirement age W.P.(C) 1951/2012 and batch matters Page 70 of 70 will take effect. 72. The Court clarifies that this judgment will not have the effect of reinstatement of the Petitioners who have already retired. In view of the principle of „no work, no pay‟, it will also not have the effect of their being entitled to any arrears of pay for any further period beyond their retirement. However, for the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, the differential period (in the event of enhancement of the retirement age) will be added to period of service actually rendered by each of them. In other words, their notional date of retirement would be arrived at by adding the differential years to their actual date of retirement. On such calculation they would be entitled to the arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. 

(Dev Sharma vs ITBP, decided on 31/01/2019 Delhi HC)

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NOT TO BE QUASHED ON THE BASIS OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ACCUSED AND INFORMANT

Honorable Supreme Court held that a criminal case cannot be quashed on the ground that there is a settlement between the accused and informant and that to in case of 307 I P C which is non compoundable. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 7)

POWER OF COURTS TO RECALL ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER Cr.P.C.

The courts has no power to recall its own order passed under the provisions of Cr.P.C.  The Supreme Court  while discussing the order passed by lower court discharging the accused and recalling the discharge order subsequently, held that once order is passed under Cr.P.C. by the court it cannot be recalled or reviewed since there is no provision of recall or review  in Cr.P.C.

( Deepu vs State of M.P. 2018(4) Crimes 505 SC)

POLICE TO KEEP NAME OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN SEALED COVER AND REPLACE WITH IDENTICAL NAMES.

1.The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace these documents by identical documents in which the name of the victim is removed in all records which may be scrutinised in the public domain.

2 All the authorities to which the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court.

3 An application by the next of kin to authorize disclosure of identity of a dead victim or of a  victim of unsound mind under Section 228A(2)(c) of IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until the Government acts under Section 228A(1)(c) and lays down a criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare institutions or organisations.

4 In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the interest of the child.

5. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one ‘one stop center’ in every district within one year from today.

(Nipun Saxena and others vs Union of India and others, WP 565/2012 decided on 11-12-18)

JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO POWER TO INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION.

Discussing the power of courts relating to the investigation the Supreme Court observed “the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of police station in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency.  ( Union of India vs P. P. Hinduja 2003(6) SCC 195)