NO ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PROCLAIMED OFFENDERS

Quashing the orders of M.P. High Court the Supreme Court in case of  State of M.P. vs Pradeep Sharma, Crl. Appeal No.50/2013 decided on 6/12/2013 held that this is the settled position of law that accused who is absconding and declared as proclaimed offender under section 82 Cr.P.C. should not be granted anticipatory bail.

GUWAHATI HIGH COURT GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED IN CASES OF "BANDH' ROAD BLOCKADE ETC.,LOSS TO BE RECOVERED FROM ORGANISERS, ACTION AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS FOR NOT OBEYING THE DIRECTIONS

Declaring the bandh, road blockade , rail blockade unconstitutional the Guwahati high court issued following guidelines to be observed in above cases.

1)  Road blockades and rail blockades are nothing but variants of bandh; therefore, those are also illegal and unconstitutional.

2) If any organization calls for an Assam bandh or state-wide road blockade/rail blockade and enforces the same, first information shall be lodged by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati city or by any of his subordinate officer whom he may authorize before the Panbazar Police Station within 24 hours of such bandh/blockade, whereafter written information shall be furnished by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati city to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department within 3 to 7 days of lodging of first information with case details.

3)  In case of a district bandh or a bandh covering more than one district or a local bandh or a blockade of either road or rail of similar nature, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police shall lodge first information before the competent police station within 24 hours of such bandh or blockade, whereafter the said Superintendent of Police shall inform the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam,  Home and Political Department about lodging of first information with case details within 3 to 7 days of lodging of first information.

4)  Investigating Officers in all such cases shall carry out investigation expeditiously and file charge-sheets before the competent criminal court promptly so that the offenders can be tried in a fast track mode.

5)  Assam Police Accountability Commission shall monitor filing of first information and registration of cases as per direction Nos. 2, 3 and 4 above. In case of any default or non seriousness in complying with the above directions, appropriate action may be taken by the Assam Police Accountability Commission in accordance with law. 5.1) In addition, Assam Police Accountability Commission shall submit monitoring report to the Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, Guwahati once every three months.

 6)  Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department, within 7 days of receipt of information as per direction Nos. 2 and 3 above,

shall file contempt petition(s)  against the organizers and the main office bearers of such organizations calling bandhs and blockades before this Court, wherein particulars of criminal cases registered against the organizers shall be furnished.

 7)  If there is any default in carrying out direction Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 above, that would be treated as dereliction of duty by the concerned authority, who would, thereafter, be liable to face departmental action, besides exposing themselves to committing contempt of court.

8)  Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, Guwahati shall maintain a record of monitoring reports submitted by Assam Police Accountability Commission. On receipt of each report, he shall examine whether any related contempt petition has been filed in terms of direction No. 6 above, if the occasion had so arisen. If no such contempt petition has been filed, he shall register a contempt case against the organizers and persons concerned which may include the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department for failure to take steps in terms of direction No. 6.

9)  Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department shall make an assessment of loss caused to the State on account of bandh or blockade, be it state-wise or district-wise or locality wise, which shall be recoverable from the organizers and main office bearers of such bandh or blockade as arrears of land revenue.

10)          Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department shall constitute a Bandh Loss Compensation Fund within a period of 3 (three) months from today, which will be managed by an authority headed by a retired District and Sessions Judge and which may include one Administrative Officer, retired or serving. The authority may take assistance of an assessor or a valuer while examining or assessing claim for compensation.

11)          The quantum of loss recovered under direction No. 9 shall be deposited by the Government of Assam in the Home and Political Department into the Bandh Loss Compensation Fund.

 12)  All claims for compensation for loss to person or property because of bandh and blockade shall be decided by the authority of the Bandh Loss Compensation Fund by evolving its own procedure, which should however ensure quick settlement of such claims. Claims can be lodged by private individuals, both private and public bodies, juristic persons etc.

13) Claim of the petitioner shall be placed before the Bandh Loss Compensation Fund immediately on its constitution, whereafter the same shall be decided by the authority of the fund in accordance with law. 36.     Since the above directions have been issued in the nature of guidelines and would hold the field till enactment of appropriate legislation by the State, it would be open to the State of Assam in the Home and Political Department to seek clarification, if the occasion so arises.

37.     Copy of this judgment and order may be furnished to the Chairman, Assam Police Accountability Commission, Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Director General of Police, Assam and Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, Guwahati

Lower Assam Inter District Stage Carriage Bus Owner's Association Vs The State Of Assam And 11 Ors, Case No. : Wp(C) 7570/2013 Decided On 19/03/19

Only Officers With Minimum Service Of 6 Months Left Should Be Considered For DGP Appointment

Clarifying last year's order on police reforms in the Prakash Singh Badal case, the Supreme Court today said that only officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service should be considered for the post of Director General of Police (DGP).

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the recommendation for post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and preparation of the panel should be purely on the basis of merit.

The apex court passed the verdict on a modification plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh. Singh had alleged that the July 3, 2018, directive was being misused by state governments who were ignoring competent senior officers for appointment as DGPs

( Prakash Singh & others  vs Union of India, I.A. 24616/2019)

FORCIBLE KISSING AND HUGGING OF MINOR MAY AMOUNT TO AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

The Sikkim High Court has held that an act of forcibly kissing a girl child of 11 years of age and hugging her may  amount to "aggravated sexual assault" as defined in Section 9(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan upheld the Special Court order convicting the accused under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, for having forcibly kissed and hugged a girl child of 11 years of age. 

The special court had taken into account narration of facts deposed by the minor victim which was also corroborated by her school mates present at the time of the incident and some just before and after the incident.  The issue considered by the court was whether forcibly kissing the minor victim a girl child of 11 years of age and hugging her amounts to "aggravated sexual assault" as defined in Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Upholding the Special court view, the court observed-

"The crucial question is whether forcibly kissing the minor victim a girl child of 11 years of age and hugging her amounts to “aggravated sexual assault” as defined in Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Whoever commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years is said to have committed aggravated sexual assault. “Sexual assault” is defined in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. The act of forcibly kissing the minor victim, a child below 12 years of age and hugging her in the back seat of a car in the absence of her guardian by a 27 year old male cannot but be with sexual intent. The act of forcibly kissing and hugging involves physical contact although without penetration. 

Thus it is cogent that the said act amounts to sexual assault. As the sexual assault was committed on a child below 12 years of age it amounts to aggravated sexual assault as defined under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Crl. Appeal No.17 of 2018

Raju Prasad v. State of Sikkim

ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE WHETHER INFORMATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

Answering the above question the CIC  in case of  Razakk vs Haidar held that the EVM is covered within the definition of of information given in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and can be given.

Supreme Court ordered to circulate the Judgment to DGPs of the State,all the Courts and Chief Secretaries to sensitize the police officers

Today the Supreme Court ordered to circulate the judgment of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India to all the Police Chief of all the States and to sensitize all the police officers on scrapping of  section 66 A of the I T Act and its continuous use by police even after scrapping.

PEOPLES’ UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
M.A. No. 3220/2018 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 199/2013 IA No.170338/2018- CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 15-02-2019

The suggestion is that copies of this Court’s judgment in ‘Shreya Singhal v. Union of India’ [(2015) 5 SCC 1] will be made available by every High Court in this country to all the District Courts. 

This should be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Also, we direct the Union Government to make available copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and the Union Territories. 

This should be done within a period of eights weeks from today. The Chief Secretaries will, in turn, sensitize the police departments in this country by sending copies of this judgment to the Director General of Police in each State, within a period of eights weeks thereafter.  

Supreme Court decision in Contempt case against CBI Interim Director

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi today held CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of the orders of the Court. 

The Court sentenced him till the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the transfer orders were passed by him despite knowing that the SC had ordered that the investigation team should not be changed.