List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors. has held that a writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

What is the Background of Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors Case?

• In this case, Petitioner who was a driver challenged a charge-sheet issued to him wherein allegations were levelled by the respondents that certain passengers were found traveling without ticket.
• Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner without any conclusive evidence with a mala fide intention to spoil the career of the petitioner.
• Respondent said that there is a Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that “It is a settled law that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner”.
• The Court said that the delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of the charge-sheet at the initial stage must submit his/her reply before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.
  • Hence, the court dismissed the petition.

What is Procedure Related to Chargesheet Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)?

• Charge:
  • As per Section 2(b) of CrPC, "Charge" includes any head of the charge when the charge contains more head than one.
• Chargesheet:
  • This section deals with the submission of a police report or chargesheet by the investigating officer to the Magistrate.
  • After completing the investigation, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward a report in writing to the Magistrate.
  • The report should contain the following:
    • the names of the parties;
    • the nature of the information;
    • the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
    • whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
    • whether the accused has been arrested;
    • whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
    • whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170 of CrPC.
  • The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
• Case Cited:
  • State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (2010):
    • Supreme Court held that held that normally a chargesheet is not quashed prior to conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that finding correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority.
• Landmark Case:
  • K Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others (1991):
    • SC ruled that the chargesheet is a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Sharma v. The State of Chhattisgarh has held that for an act of kidnapping or abduction, prosecution must prove the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted.

What is the Background of Neeraj Sharma v. The State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• In this case, the appellants had abducted a Class 12^th student.
• The abduction, as per the prosecution, was for ransom, and a dastardly attempt was also made by the accused to kill the victim, although the victim miraculously escaped, but not before sustaining grievous injuries, which eventually led to the amputation of his right leg.
• During the night, when the complainant was trying to ease himself, the two appellants attempted to kill him by throttling his neck by the clutch wire of the motorcycle. As a result, the complainant fell on the ground unconscious, and the appellants thinking that the complainant had died, poured petrol on his body and set him on fire.
• The complainant managed to escape and was taken to hospital.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants for an offence under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which has also been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there.
• The Court further stated that in order to come under the ambit of Section 364A, something more than abduction is required, which is the demand of ransom. We do not find that there was a demand for ransom as alleged by the prosecution. There is no worthwhile evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard.
• Therefore, the Court converted the findings of conviction under Section 364A to that of Section 364 IPC.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 364A, IPC

• Section 364A of IPC deals with the offence of kidnapping for ransom, etc. ­
• This section was inserted in the Indian Penal Code with effect from 22^nd May 1993.
• It states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intergovernmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh vs. Union of India, (2015) held that Section 364­A IPC has three distinct components.
  • The person concerned kidnaps or abducts or keeps the victim in detention after kidnapping or abduction.
  • Threatens to cause death or hurt or causes apprehension of death or hurt or actually hurts or causes death.
  • The kidnapping, abduction or detention and the threats of death or hurt, apprehension for such death or hurt or actual death or hurt is caused to coerce the person concerned or someone else to do something or to forbear from doing something or to pay ransom.

Section 364, IPC

• This section deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• It states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the matter of The Secretary, Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School v. Sharu Gupta and Ors., has held that take care of a child is not only the fundamental right of the woman but also a pious role to be performed by her for the existence of Society.

What is the Background of The Secretary, Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School v. Sharu Gupta and Ors. Case?

• In the present case the respondent was appointed in petitioner school as Assistant Teacher on contract basis.
• She was appointed on probation and later her services were terminated.
• After the delivery of the baby, the respondent preferred a complaint under Section 17 of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 before the Labour Inspector for setting aside the termination order.
• The Authorized Inspector allowed the complaint and issued directions to reinstate respondent and to pay her maternity benefits.
• Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed that to conceive, to give birth and take care of a child is not only the fundamental right of the woman but also a pious role to be performed by her for the existence of Society. Keeping in view the arduous nature of this duty, she must be provided with facilities to which she is entitled.
• The Court further states that the right to become a mother is also one of the most important human rights and this right must be protected at all costs and therefore, provisions of Maternity Benefit Act must be enforced strictly wherever applicable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961

About:

• An Act to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after childbirth and to provide for maternity benefit and certain other benefits.
• This Act has been enacted to provide all facilities to the working women in dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honorably, peacefully and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during pre- or post-natal period.
• This Act came into force on 1^st November 1963.
• Section 17 of this Act deals with the power of the Inspector to direct payments to be made. It states that-

(1) Any woman claiming that—

(a) Maternity benefit or any other amount to which she is entitled under this Act and any person claiming that payment due under section 7 has been improperly withheld.

(b) Her employer has discharged or dismissed her during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may make a complaint to the Inspector.

(2) The Inspector may, of his own motion or on receipt of a complaint referred to in sub-section (1), make an inquiry or cause an inquiry to be made and if satisfied that—

(a) Payment has been wrongfully withheld, may direct the payment to be made in accordance with his orders.

(b) She has been discharged or dismissed during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may pass such orders as are just and proper according to the circumstances of the case.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector under sub-section (2) may, within thirty days from the date on which such decision is communicated to such persons, appeal to the prescribed authority.

(4) The decision of the prescribed authority where an appeal has been preferred to it under subsection (3) or of the Inspector where no such appeal has been preferred, shall be final.

(5) Any amount payable under this section shall be recoverable by the Collector on a certificate issued for that amount by the Inspector as arrears of land revenue.

Case Law

• In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000), the Supreme Court held that to become a mother is a most natural phenomena in the life of a woman and for it, the beneficial piece of legislation i.e. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been enacted with object to provide security to the working woman with respect to her service as well as extension of benefits.