Section 188 Cr.PC and jurisdiction of Courts

It was held by the Honourable High Court of Delhi that, if an Indian citizen commits a crime in a foreign territory and was arrested in any part of Indian Territory, then more than one courts in India has got the jurisdiction to try such cases.

Such an observation was made by the Delhi High Court while dealing with a case of the accused who got arrested in Delhi for making fake passport in Sydney and Zimbabwe. Though it was argued by the accused that, since the fake passport was made in Bangalore, the case shall be transferred to Bangalore; Delhi High Court didn’t accept such a plea.

It was contented by the accused that, though he committed offences related to fake passport in Australia and Harare, the cause of action of such crimes arose in Bangalore, as the fake passports are made there.

However, court while rejecting such plea of the accused held that, if an Indian citizen commits a crime in a foreign territory and was arrested in any part of Indian Territory, then Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply.

Under Section 188 of Cr.PC, any court in India can try the case if the accused is arrested in India for committing any offence in a foreign country.

Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) deals with offence committed outside India. By virtue of Section 188, When an offence is committed outside India;

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Online Rummy is not gambling, says SC

A bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur and S.A. Bobde of Supreme Court while hearing an appeal challenging a Madras high court ruling that playing rummy with stakes amounts to gambling, said that the verdict will not impact online rummy websites.

Judgment came after a bunch of petitions filed by clubs and online rummy companies against the Madras High Court verdict that declared rummy for stakes as a form of gambling and hence illegal. However, the high courts of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh found rummy as a game of skill and said it was not illegal. It was in the wake of this divergent view that the clubs as well as online companies approached the apex court.

Supreme Court while putting rummy websites out of the ambit of its scrutiny and chose to concentrate on legality of table rummy played in clubs. These games would come under the ambit of gambling and thus illegal only if it is held that they involve chance and no skill.

Suspension of life term sentence denied

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court upholding the contentions of the public prosecutor that, the appellant did not deserve to be let out on bail since the charge of murdering a young girl in a gruesome manner had been proved before the trial court beyond all reasonable doubts, dismissed the application of the convict to suspend his life term.

The public prosecutor also contented that, the appellant had inflicted injuries on the girl’s father also when he attempted to prevent the murder. Later, he carried the girl’s severed head and threw it in a nearby bush. The prosecution through cogent evidence adduced by the girl’s father as well as other witnesses had proved the entire incident. Therefore, the appellant has not made out a case for suspension of sentence

Earlier the trial court convicted the appellant for life term in the case of trespassing and murder of deceased victim who refused to marry him and severing her head in the presence of her father, mother and younger sister. Charges were made under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 302: Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 307: Attempt to murder

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts. [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]

Do not compromise with safety, human life is precious

A social justice bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and U U Lalit while asking railways to give a roadmap for operating crossings said that, the law enacted in 1989 for doing away with unmanned level crossings has not been implemented by the railways in the last 26 years.

Bench came heavily on Indian Railways, asking, “Why don’t you tell us when will you complete the task? There must be some road map for at least 203 accident-prone crossings. We are not sitting here for fun. You must tell us what you are doing in this regard”.

Bench also asked Indian Railways that, “Why do you bring more trains when you cannot protect the lives of people? Human life cannot be treated so cheaply. Safety is very important and you must take it seriously”.

As reported in Times of India, there are more than 11,000 unmanned crossings, out of which 203 have been marked as accident-prone. The unmanned crossings are responsible for the maximum number of train accidents at around 40%.

BMW hit and run case, bail granted to Vismay Shah

Supreme Court granted bail to the convict, Mr. Vismay Shah of famous BMW Hit and run case. The BMW hit and run case occurred on February 23, 2013, where two youth lost their lives in Vastrapur area. Earlier Mr. Vismay Shah was sentenced to five years imprisonment by an Ahmedabad court, in the Hit and run case.

While considering the application for bail, the Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice H L Dattu took note of the fact that Mr. Vismay Shah was young and had already spent more than 13 months in jail. Further, the apex court directed the High Court to expeditiously hear Mr. Vismay Shah appeal against his conviction.

Mr. Vismay Shah in his appeal before the High Court, challenged the trial court’s recent judgment convicting him under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. The Ahmedabad court had also ordered Vismay to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to each of the two affected families, and slapped a fine of Rs 25,000 on him.

What is Section 304, Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

Section 304, Indian Penal Codes speaks about the Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. By virtue of Section 304, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years. Such person shall also be liable to fine;

  1. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
  2. of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
  3. with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or
  4. with fine, or
  5. with both,

if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

CSK and Rajasthan Royals banned from IPL for two years

Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Rajasthan Royals (RR) were suspended for two years from the Indian Premier League (IPL) by the panel appointed by the Supreme Court of India. Earlier Supreme Court appointed a panel to address the issue IPL sport fixing and betting scandal.

Panel headed by Justice RM Lodha, in its verdict, which suspended two former champions Chennai Super Kings (CSK), and Rajasthan Royals (RR) of Indian Premier League (IPL), also suspended, Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra from any type of cricket matches for life after they were found guilty of betting in the T20 tournament.

Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan is the son-in-law of current ICC Chief, N. Srinivasan. Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was the Team Principal of Chennai Super Kings (CSK), and Mr. Raj Kundra was the co-owner of Rajasthan Royals (RR).

Panel observed that, Meiyappan is involved in the sport fixing and betting scandal, and his conduct affected image of BCCI, the Indian Premier League (IPL) and the game of Cricket (Twenty 20/T20). Panel also observed that, Raj Kundra was placing bets through a known punter and was constantly in touch with bookies. Rajasthan Royals have damaged the faith of BCCI and the sport, Mr. Raj Kundra is found guilty of misconduct.

Earlier, Supreme Court had held that the allegation of betting against Meiyappan and Kundra stood proved and set up the three-member committee of its retired judges to determine the punishment for Meiyappan, who was the Chennai Super Kings (CSK) team Principal and Kundra, the co-owner of Rajasthan Royals (RR).

Rajasthan Royals (RR) won the inaugural event in 2008 under the captaincy of Australian spin legend Shane Warne, and Chennai Super Kings (CSK) are also the most successful team in the Indian Premier League (IPL), having won the tournament in 2010 and 2011, and finished runners-up in 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2015. Indian cricket team skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni (MS Dhoni) was the Caption for Chennai Super Kings (CSK) for all the IPL season.

Kerala pacer and former Indian fast bowler Sreesanth was a part of Rajasthan Royals, where a case is pending against Sreesanth before the Court at Delhi for alleged sport fixing in the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL). Said case is posted to July 15, 2015 for framing charges in the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL).

No personal information even if she is your wife, Rules Karnataka High Court

While considering an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, seeking certain information relating to the passport issued to his wife by the Regional Passport Officer, Passport officer rejects husband’s RTI application, and informed the applicant that, the info cannot be furnished. Such information is not liable to be disclosed in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits it.

After his appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, applicant had appealed the Central Information Commissioner, and had approached the High Court. The High Court in its order noted that even if that issue of appeal before the Central Information Commissioner is kept aside, the Passport Officer was right in his stand. “The reasons indicated are justified in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act. Hence, the same does not call for interference.”

Section 8(1) (j) in the Right to Information Act, 2005

Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Pay Compensation if police fail to crack cases

While passing interim orders, on a petition filed by the father of a 15-year-old girl, who was murdered for gain in Pudukottai district in March 2011, Justice S Nagamuthu of the Madras High Court held that, the State government is liable to pay compensation to the victims even in cases which remain unsolved for years together and recover the money from the criminals after the police succeed in nabbing them and held that, under the Victim Compensation Scheme, framed by the State government in 2013 following the introduction of Section 357A to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2009, provides for a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh in cases of death, the judge ordered that a cheque for the amount should be handed over to the present petitioner and his wife in open court on July 27.

Court further opined that, “when a citizen’s right is infringed by an unscrupulous criminal and when the crime could not be even detected by the State agencies, then the State government is liable to pay compensation.” While hearing the parties, Court observed that, “The State is constitutionally obliged to guarantee a dignified life to its citizens and it includes sufficient safety and safeguard to their person and property… but here is a man who has been waiting for justice for the past four years having lost his lovable daughter in her teenage.

He is crying for justice at least to know the perpetrator of the crime. Court further observed that, “The sufferings of the petitioner and his other family members and the mental agony and trauma caused to them as a result of the occurrence cannot be viewed lightly. Article 21, considered to be heart and soul of the Constitution, guarantees a very precious fundamental right to life which includes fair investigation and fair trial as against any crime.”

Backward Class Community to remain Backward Class

Ayesha, born in a Hindu family, embraced Islam on November 28, 2005, and in August 2014 she obtained community certificate stating that she belonged to Muslim Labbai community. As per a July 19, 1994 government order, Muslim Labbai is a recognised Backward Community.

She wrote the examination for junior assistant/typist group-IV in December 2014 and scored 153 marks. Though she was called for certificate verification, her application was rejected at verification stage on the ground that she was not eligible for the post as she was not a Muslim by birth. Since no order was passed on her representation explaining her position, she filed petition in the Madras High Court.

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its counter contented that, the petitioner Ayesha could have applied only under “others” category where the upper age limit was 30 years. She was aged 32 years, and hence she was not eligible to apply for the post. The counsel of the petitioner said the issue was covered by an order passed by Justice Hariparanthaman in an identical case and added that the woman would be eligible if she is considered Backward Class Muslim and not under open category.

Acceding to the plea, Justice Hariparanthaman said he had passed orders in M U Aariffaa’s case, which is similar to Ayesha’s case, after referring to various Supreme Court rulings. Court then asked Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to treat Ayesha as a Backward Class Muslim candidate and consider her for a post.

After considering the plea of both the parties Honourable High Court of Madras on held that a Hindu Backward Class person, who embraces Islam, shall be considered as BC Muslim. Justice D Hariparanthaman of the High Court of Madras passed the order and directed Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to accept the application of R Ayesha, who embraced Islam in 2005 and applied for a typist’s post in 2014, as a Backward Class Muslim candidate.

Salman Khan Case deferred to July 1, 2015

While hearing the criminal appeal filed by Bollywood superstar Salman Khan against his conviction in the hit-and-run case in which he has been awarded a five-year jail sentence, Bombay High Court has adjourned the appeal till July 1.

EarlierSessions Court convicted the Bollywood superstar Salman Khan in the hit-and-run case five-year jail term. A man was killed and four others were wounded when the Salman Khan’s Toyota Land Cruiser ran over them while they were asleep on a pavement outside a bakery in suburban Bandra on September 28, 2002.

In the present Criminal Appeal, Salman Khan has challenged the findings of the trial court that he was drunk and was driving under the influence of liquor. Salman Khan pleaded that the trial court had wrongly convicted him under the culpable homicide charge, because he had no knowledge that he would meet with an accident.

In the appeal, Salman Khan has argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the fact that four prosecution witnesses, including the investigating officer, had maintained that there were four persons present in the Toyota Land Cruiser when the accident took place and that it was the family driver Ashok Singh who was at the wheel.

Apart from being convicted of culpable homicide, Salman Khan was also found guilty of offences under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (rash and negligent driving) and Sections 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code(causing hurt by acts endangering life or personal property of others), which prescribe six months’ jail.

Besides, he was sentenced to undergo jail for six months under sections 181 (driving without licence) and 185 (drink driving) of Motor Vehicles Act. Salman was also found guilty under Section 66 (a) and (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for which he received two months imprisonment and fine of Rs 500. All sentences will run concurrently.

When the present case was called for hearing, Salman Khan’s lawyer submitted before Justice A.R. Joshi of Bombay High Court that, the ‘paper book’ was not complete. ‘Paper Book’ is nothing but the compilation of evidence and documents, which is served to both the sides by the court. Court directed that, said task shall be expeditiously completed and deferred the matter till July 1, 2015.