MUMBAI: Women, children and physically handicapped persons, who are either witnesses or complainants, will not be summoned to police stations for recording of their statements from now onwards, the Bombay high court was informed on Monday.
The court was informed through a circular issued by Deven Bharti, inspector general of police (law and order).
The circular issued to all police stations across Maharashtra has directed police to ensure that women, children and physically handicapped are not summoned to police stations for recording of statements.
Asking the police to strictly follow section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the circular states if the statement of any woman, child below the age of 15, and physically handicapped person is required, the policeman concerned will have to go to their residence and record the statement.
The circular was submitted to a division bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and AR Joshi during the hearing of a plea filed by an advocate Geetal Haldankar, who had alleged that when she had gone to lodge a complaint with the police against an estate agent she was made to sit in the police station till late in the night.
According to Haldankar, she had rented a flat in Diva in neighbouring Thane district through one Shubhda Narvekar. She was, however, not given an agreement by Narvekar.
Recently, when she returned from work, the landlord of the house had removed her lock from the door and put his own. When Haldankar approached the Diva police to file a case against Narvekar, the police there refused to take her complaint and made her sit there till late in the night.
Haldankar wrote a letter to the senior police inspector complaining about the behaviour of the police officials but did not receive any reply. The advocate later approached the high court seeking direction to police to lodge a case.
The high court was today also informed that Haldankar’s complaint has been lodged and investigations are on following which her petition was disposed of.
A court in the US has ordered a man to post an apology to his estranged wife on his Facebook page for 30 days to avoid a jail sentence for blasting her on the social networking site, a case that stirred controversy over freedom of speech rights.
Mark Byron, a Cincinnati-based photographer, was so bothered by his pending divorce and child visitation issues that he wrote a nasty note to “vent” out his frustration.
“I just went on Facebook to vent,” Byron said. “I kind of likened it to having a drink with a friend at a bar and telling them about things.”
The note implied that his wife was out to ruin his life. “If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely – all you need to do is say you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner and they’ll take him away!” the note on his Facebook wall said.
Despite Byron blocking his wife from seeing his Facebook wall, she learnt of the post which touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant.
To avoid 60-days in jail, Byron was asked to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends, something free-speech experts found troubling.
“The idea that a court can say, ‘I order you not to post something or to post something’ seems to me to be a 1st Amendment issue,” free-speech expert Jack Greiner said.
Magistrate Paul Meyers said Byron could either go to prison and pay a USD 500 fine or post an apology and pay child support.
The apology was written by the judge and Byron has been posting all the news stories about his case on his Facebook page.
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Expeditious trial of cases has to be ensured by making necessary changes in procedure. States must create a separate investigation cadre. Separate prosecution cadre is also required. This was stated by the Union Home Minister Sh. P. Chidambaram at the Consultative Committee meeting of the Ministry of Home Affairs which discussed the topic: Investigation, Prosecution & Trial – the need for revamping.
He informed members that Law Commission of India has been requested to give a report on the amendments required immediately. He said the Department- related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs while examining the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2010 in its 146th Report has recommended that there should be comprehensive review of the Criminal Justice System and introduction of composite draft legislation for revamping of the Criminal Justice System in the country. Accordingly, Ministry of Law & Justice have been requested to request the Law Commission of India to examine and give a comprehensive report covering all aspects of criminal law, so that comprehensive amendments could be made in the various laws viz. IPC, Cr.P.C., Evidence Act, etc. It was also suggested that the Law Commission of India may also, inter-alia, take into account the recommendations made by Malimath Committee & other Committee/Commission in this regard. The recommendations of the Law Commission of India in this regard are awaited.
While initiating the discussion, the Union Home Minister said, the investigation has moved to technology based evidence, new forensic tools are used by other countries. We also need to move towards it.
He said the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, constituted on 24.11.2000 under the Chairmanship of Justice V. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts, considered measures for revamping the criminal justice system and gave recommendations on various aspects of the criminal justice system including investigation, prosecution and the trial procedure in its Report submitted in March, 2003. Since the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure are on the Concurrent List of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and the same are administered by the State Governments, any amendment to them requires consultation with the State Governments. In view of this, the report was forwarded to the State Governments and Union Territories Administrations to obtain their views/comments.
The Law Commission of India also reviewed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in its 154th Report. The 197th Report of the Law Commission of India examined the issues relating to appointment of Public Prosecutor. The view of the State Governments/Union Territory administration on recommendation of Law Commission have been sought. Some of the issues relating to investigation, prosecution and trial procedure highlighted in these reports are:
The Investigation Wing should be separated from the Law and Order Wing. A separate wing of the investigation with clear mandate and it is accountable only to Rule of Law is the needed. The Law Commission of India specifically discussed this issue threadbare in its 154th Report and categorically recommended for separating the investigating agency from the law and order police. Placement policy of investigating staff, inadequate training, Comprehensive use of Forensic Science from the inception and problems related to Medico Legal Services were highlighted.
Several measures have been suggested to improve the quality of investigation. Interrogation centres should be set up at district headquarters in each district where they do not exist and strengthened where they exist. A mechanism for coordination amongst investigators, forensic experts and prosecutors at the State at district level for effective investigations and prosecutions should be devised. A suitable provision be made to exclude the period during which the accused is not available for investigation on grounds of health etc. for computing the permissible period of police custody. Refusal to entertain complaints regarding commission of any offence should be made punishable. Stringent punishment for false registration of cases & false complaints.
Members highlighted that the common man suffers as the manner in which police investigation is conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the criminal justice system. A prompt and quality investigation is the foundation of an effective criminal justice system. They also raised the issue of non-registration of cases by police in some cases. On this, Sh. P. Chidambaram informed Members that in Delhi all but sensitive FIRs are on website. The members also called for separate cadres for investigation work and prosecution.
The following members of Consultative Committee were present at the meeting:
Shri H.K. Dua, Nominated, Dr. K. Keshava Rao, INC, Andhra Pradesh, Shri Thomas Sangma, NCP, Meghalaya, Dr. Vijay Mallya, IND, Karnataka from Rajya Sabha. Shri Bhisma Shankar alias Kushal Tiwari, BSP, U.P., Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda, BJP, Karnataka, Shri Ismail Hussain, INC, Assam, Shri J.P. Aggarwal, INC, Delhi, Shri Kalyan Banerjee, AITC, W.B., Shri Lalu Prasad, RJD, Bihar, Dr. Rattan Singh Ajnala, SAD, Punjab, Shri Sheeshs Ram Ola, INC, Rajasthan, Dr. Thokchom Meinya, INC, Manipur, Shri Yogi Aditya Nath, BJP, U.P. from Lok Sabha.
If you’ve ever nursed an ambition to be photographed with the prime minister, today’s your chance. Gurmeet Singh, who is in Bangalore to promote his debut movie The Wedding Gift, looks so much like Manmohan Singh that even Sonia Gandhi ends up being muddled.
In fact, it was an episode with Sonia that made film director Suhaib Ilyasi cast Gurmeet as the prime minister in his film. “At a public function in New Delhi, I saw Sonia Gandhi get up to welcome prime minister Manmohan Singh. To everyone’s surprise, it turned out to be Gurmeet Singh. I immediately knew I had the actor for my film. He is not only Manmohan’s lookalike, but even his voice is similar,” Ilyasi said.
Gurmeet loves the confusion that he leaves in his wake and does nothing to set it right. On the contrary, he wears Manmohan’s trademark blue turban and white kurta-pyjama in public, leaving security personnel at their wits’ end. He even flummoxed staff at the hospital where Manmohan underwent a heart surgery by walking around.
Gurmeet is an All India Congress Committee (AICC) media co-ordinator and knows the PM. “I have met the prime minister on a few occasions. He calls me by my name. I have met his family members also,” says the 67-year-old,” he said.
He was into the family’s cold storage business in Delhi until 2004 when Manmohan became the prime minister. Leaving the business to his brother, Gurmeet joined the Congress.
“I was a close friend of Ajit Jogi. It was because of him that I joined. I have worked as a campaign organiser for Manmohan Singhji. I can go on about the many funny incidents that take place because of my resemblance to him,” says Singh.
The latest confusion happened two days ago when Gurmeet went to watch India play against Italy in the Olympics Hockey qualifiers. The television commentator announced that the prime minister was watching the match and it was only later that he realised his mistake and revealed that it was Gurmeet the lookalike.
PM’s press meet
Gurmeet Singh will be answering questions about the Indian Penal Code and other laws allegedly misused by women to harass their husbands. No, he’s no activist. But, his film ‘The Wedding Gift’ is about the misuse of Section 498(A) of the IPC.
1 / 1
A Sessions Court at Rohini here has overturned a Magistrate’s order granting bail to a woman accused of involvement in the dowry death of her daughter-in-law despite three successive orders, two by a Sessions court and one by the Delhi High Court, denying her anticipatory bail.
“The order may not per-se be illegal, but is certainly improper [of] the Metropolitan Magistrate [for] not having taken into consideration two successive orders of the Sessions Courts and also the order of the High Court, and the impugned order being a non-speaking order not reflecting proper application of mind or an effective hearing given to the prosecution, but I may add that no mala fide can be attribute to the Judge, though the Subordinate Court ought to be much more vigilant. The order of the Magistrate dated December 5, 2011, is hereby set aside being an abuse of process of law,” Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.
The prosecution said the Magistrate did not grant sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to argue the matter as the bail application of accused Krishna Devi Sharma was moved by her counsel on December 5, and the order passed on the same day without the court calling for a report from the Investigating Officer.
The prosecution also contended that the MM failed to consider that the accused avoided her arrest intentionally, that the bail order was passed in haste without going through the case records and that the accused had concealed that fact that non-bailable warrants were issued against her. It was also pleaded that the case pertains to dowry death, exclusively triable by a Sessions Court and therefore, the Magistrate’s Court should refrain from entertaining bail applications in such cases wherein the punishment provided is death or life imprisonment.
The prosecution also pointed out that the Magistrate’s order was not a speaking order as it does not show any grounds or reason for which bail was granted for the accused. While cancelling bail, Dr. Lau took note of one of the earlier reasons given by a Sessions Court for not granting bail: the victim in a suicide note had said her husband had married her only for the “service of his mother, cleaning and cooking and treating her like a maid”.
A panchkula court, on Thursday, acquitted Anil Kumar and his father Sheesh Pal, a resident of Hongal, Barwala on charges of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The defence counsel in the case, Anirudh Kush had pleaded that Anil’s wife, Sushma Devi, had committed suicide by hanging herself and the duo had no role in the incident and had never demanded a dowry.
The prosecution had in turn had pleaded that the two accused had demanded lakhs of rupees from Sushma Devi in dowry, which forced her to commit suicide .
After hearing the arguments the Sessions Judge Anita Chaudhary, acquitted the father-son duo of the charges under Section 304-B. The case dates back to May 30, 2009, when Sushma Devi was found dead at her home. On the compliant of Sushma’s family, police had registered a case against Anil and his father under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The two were later arrested by police and were presently out on a bail.
One alimony no bar to a woman getting another
Husband’s counsel tells court that estranged wife is already getting alimony from another ex-husband. Judge retorts: “What is your problem if he is paying? You too will have to pay”
Posted On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 04:43:28 AM
|A man tried to evade paying alimony to his estranged wife by pointing out that she was already getting an allowance from another previous husband. But the judge retorted, “What is your problem if he is paying? You too will have to pay.”The rather unusual situation cropped up in the High Court of Karnataka on Monday, with the man’s counsel arguing, “She is being paid Rs 6,000 per month as alimony by a former husband as well.” Taken by surprise, the division bench of Justice N K Patil and Justice C R Kumaraswamy asked the counsel which husband he was talking about. The advocate explained that the woman had been married earlier and the case in question was related to her second marriage.
It led to Justice Patil retorting, “What is your problem if he is paying? You too will have to pay.”
The divorce case, which was being heard in a lower court, reached the high court, with concerned parties disputing the alimony amount.
When told that the first husband was paying the woman Rs 6,000 per month, the judge asked, “Does she have a child?” When told that she had a seven-year-old daughter, he asked, “How much of the Rs 6,000 is for the mother and how much is for the child?” He was told that the amount was for both of them.
This prompted the husband’s counsel to tell the court that he had no property. “I do not have anything. I have no property,” the husband’s counsel said.
The court said that these were human problems and there should be trust in the marriage.
The husband’s counsel said, “If she goes about filing criminal complaints on charges of dowry and domestic violence, there is no trust left. No marriage is a benefit. It is always a problem. Acquiring property is a liability in marriages now.”
Justice Patil put an end to the argument saying, “Every couple quarrels, but not all end up in court and jail… Loud arguments will not help anyone in personal problems. The question here is only about maintenance. Is there any problem with the first husband?”
When told there was none, the court asked the couple to meet, along with their counsels, and arrive at a mutually-agreed alimony amount by October 21.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS