WEEKLY ROUND-UP

inbatv News
  1. Supreme Court:
    The Scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990 clearly contemplated exercise of the power of District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 by an Additional District Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate, the bench said:
    “under Section 13 there is no limitation on the State Government while specially empowering an officer of the State to exercise the power of District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 and further under Section 18, the powers and duties of District Magistrate can be directed to be exercised or performed by Additional District Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate for such areas as may be specified in the order.”
    The Court was hearing the appeal against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in which it was held that the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior had no jurisdiction to pass an order extending the respondent for a period of one year from the district concerned. The High Court had relied upon the Constitution Bench verdict in Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh, (1965) 2 SCR 845 , wherein it was held that the order could not have been passed by any authority lower than the rank of District Magistrate.
    Holding this reliance to be erroneous, the Court explained that the said case dealt with the Statutory Scheme under the Defence of India Act, 1962 according to which detention order can be passed by the authority empowered by the rules to apprehend or detain with restriction that the authority empowered to detain not being lower in rank than that of a District Magistrate. Hence, in that case the Constitution Bench had held that Additional District Magistrate being not the District Magistrate was incompetent to pass the impugned order. Considering that in the present case the Adhiniyam, 1990, in fact, empowered the Additional District Magistrate to pass orders, the Court said that the Constitution Bench verdict in Ajaib Singh Case was not applicable and hence, the judgment of the High Court was set aside. [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharmendra Rathore, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 of 2019, decided on 29.01.2019]
  2. Rajasthan High Court:
    A Single Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Gaur, J., disposed of the current petition seeking an early date for a divorce proceeding.
    In the present case the petitioner-husband had prayed for early disposal of the application of divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The office registered the divorce application on 25-09-2018 and issued notice to respondent-wife by fixing the next date i.e. 12-02-2019. He also argued that Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that trial should be continued from day to day and further as per sub-section (2) the divorce petition should be tried expeditiously and endeavour should be made to conclude the trial within six months. The High Court while discussing Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stated “that endeavor is required to be made to decide the divorce petition expeditiously and the endeavor should be there to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of service of notice of the petition upon the respondent. The Court found that date of service of notice in the instant petition was already fixed on 12-02-2019. The instant petition was thus disposed of observing that no unnecessary adjournment should be taken by parties during the pendency of divorce petition.” [Vipul Khandelwal v. Nikita Khandelwal, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2322, order dated 11-12-2018]
  3. Jammu and Kashmir High Court:
    The Bench of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. dismissed the application filed to assail the decision passed by the Trial Court wherein the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 376, 363 and 344 of the RPC for wrongfully restraining and raping the prosecutrix for several days. The Court dismissed the appeal upholding the settled law that the appellate Court will not lightly interfere with the judgment of acquittal. [State v. Rajinder Paul Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2018, Order dated 30-01-2019]
  4. Punjab and Haryana High Court:
    In the present case, Petitioner had filed the Criminal writ petition before a Bench of Inderjit Singh, J. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of detenue along with a truck which was alleged to be illegally detained by respondents. Facts of the case were that by an order of this Court, Warrant Officer was appointed. The officer was directed to visit the place where the detenue was alleged to be detained illegally and if he finds the custody to be illegal the detenue was to be released. In consequence of the order, a report was submitted by the Warrant Officer stating that the detenue was not found in the police custody when the raid was done. But the truck was taken by the police as the registration certificate was fake and FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code was registered at Police Station Sanaur. High Court in view of the above-submitted report, found no reason to interfere in this matter. [Gurmit Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRWP-100-2019, decided on 30-01-2019]
  5. Orissa High Court:
    The Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the application filed for challenging the order of the District Court where under the appellate court rejected the application of the petitioner-appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to admit five documents as additional evidence.
    The Court relying on the case of Sankar Pradhan v. Premananda Pradhan, 2015 (II) CLR 583 held that the legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent.” The petition was thus allowed. [Gopal Krushna Panda v. Utkal Grameen Bank, C.M.P. No. 1479 of 2018, Order dated 28-01-2019]

Source: SCC ONLINE

By-
Ritika Goyal
Student Reporter- INBA