Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary Introduction In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. The Government o
In this case, the Court is concerned about the misuse of the power given to the police officer to arrest a person against whom reasonable suspicion or ground exists under Section 41 of the CRPC, 1973.
Facts
This petition was filed under Article 136 (SLP) for an order to grant an anticipatory bail after his earlier application was rejected by the Session Judge and HC. The petitioner was charged under S.498A of IPC and S.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court by taking note of the NCRB report and gravity of arrest under S.498A, made an Order/Direction to prevent the unnecessary arrest and detention of an accused.
Observations
NCRB "Crime India Report" 2012 :-
Rate of chargesheet made under S.498A is 93.6% but conviction rate is only 15%.
6% of total arrest under the IPC was under S.498A.
One fourth of the arrest under S 498A are women.
Section 498A of IPC, 1860 is a cognizable and non-bailable offence which has become easiest way to arrest the husband and his relative as a result it has become a weapon against in-laws family rather than a shield by a disappointed wife.
The fact that arrest brings humiliation and curtails freedom is known by law framers as well as by the police therefore it is essential to maintain balance between individual and social liberty as emphasized in several reports and judgment.
Section 41 impliedly says it is essential for the police officer before arrest to put a question from himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? along with by following other conditions under clauses (a) to (e) of S.41(1) CrPC.
As per Section 57 of the CRPC, 1973 a person who has been arrested without warrant cannot be detained beyond 24 hours.
Order/Direction
A case under S.498A doesn't mean automatic arrest of the accused unless it is a necessity under S.41 CrPC.
All Police officer must be provided with a checklist containing specified sub-clauses under S.41(1)(b)(ii).
To further detain the accused, police officer must forward the duly filled checklist and materials which necessitated the arrest to the Magistrate.
Magistrate shall authorise further detention only after recording it's satisfaction.
Decision not to arrest shall be forwarded to Magistrate within two weeks, (can be extended by SP by recording the reasons), after the case was registered.
Notice of appearance can be served within 2 weeks (can be extended by SP by recording the reasons) after registration of case.
Departmental action as well as contempt of court proceedings will be taken against officers who fail to follow these directions.
Departmental action shall be taken against Magistrates if they authorise detention without recording reasons.
Decisions
The honourable Court said to instruct all the State Governments to instruct it's police officers to not arrest immediately when a case comes under Section 498A IPC but to satisfy themselves for the necessity of the arrest as per the conditions given in Section 41 CRPC, 1973.
Appeal allowed.
Summary
The Court by observing the NCRB report and the actual condition prevailing in the society took note that the power to arrest the accused under S.41 has been misused by police. Also S.498A of IPC is being misused by women as a weapon and not as a shield. This Court therefore made certain directions to the police officers while making arrest and also to the Magistrate while authorising detention beyond 24 hours.
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary Introduction This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway. For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme, and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme, Earlier the sharehol
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Comments
Post a Comment