List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sunil Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr., has held that license conditions are not violated when pistols are fired for the purpose of self defence.

What is the Background of Sunil Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the applicant along with others was involved in firing with the intent to cause harm to the complainant and others but no injuries were reported.
• The applicant had been charge-sheeted under Sections 286, 323, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 30 of the Arms Act 1959.
• The applicant filed an application before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking the release of his licensed pistol and four cartridges, but the application was rejected.
• Aggrieved by this, the applicant approached the Allahabad High Court.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that firing a pistol in self-defence does not violate license conditions and does not appear to be an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Arms Act, 1959

• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Arms and Ammunition.
  • The main objective of this Act is to regulate and restrict the circulation of arms and ammunition, which were illegal.
  • This Act recognized the necessity for certain law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms for certain specific purposes including self-defence.
  • It came into force on 1^st October 1962.
• Section 30 of this Act deals with the punishment for contravention of licence or rule.
  • It states that whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 286 of IPC

• This section deals with negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances.
• It states that whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• It is a cognizable, bailable offence which is triable by any magistrate.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra has held that a complaint filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) by a mother-in-law against her daughter in law is maintainable

What is the Background of Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra?

• The Petitioner, Zeba, is the daughter-in-law of the Respondent, Afrin.
• Zeba married Mohsin, son of Afrin in May 2016.
• According to Zeba, she was subjected to tremendous ill-treatment and cruelty by her husband and his family.
• She was therefore compelled to lodge a complaint against Mohsin and his family members with the police authorities concerned.
• Complaining of domestic violence in her matrimonial home, she also made an application under the DV Act against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and the brother of her mother-in-law.
• The Respondent filed the application under Section 12 of the DV Act against Zeba, her father and brother seeking relief in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
• Thereafter, the court issued summons to Zeba and her family members and who challenged the complaint and summons before the Bombay High Court.
• The High Court set aside the complaint against Petitioner’s family members but held that complaint against Zeba is maintainable.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that while the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act.
• The Court quashed the proceedings against the father and brother, noting that the complainant failed to show any domestic relationship. However, the Court refused to quash the complaint against daughter-in-law, holding that the parties were related by marriage and were family members living together in a joint family,

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

DV Act

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds.
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.
• The preamble of this Act makes it clear that the reach of the Act is that violence, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic, are all to be redressed by the statute.

Section 12 of DV Act

This Section deals with the Application to Magistrate. It states that –

(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favor of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma observed the situation where complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) can be quashed.

• The Supreme Court gave observation in the case of Ghanshyam Gautam v. Usha Rani (Since Deceased) Through L.R.S Ravi Shankar.

What is the Background of Ghanshyam Gautam v. Usha Rani (Since Deceased) Through L.R.S Ravi Shankar Case?

• The appellant was convicted after proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act.
• In the meantime, the parties had settled their scores and had filed a compromise deed dated 16^th January 2018, according to which, the respondent-complainant agreed to accept the amount of Rs. 1,14,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fourteen Thousand) as full and final settlement of the cheque amount and the fine imposed by the Trial Court, which had been confirmed by the High Court.
• Still, no one from the respondent side presented the information to court because the case is still pending since 2018.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC held that “Once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full and final settlement of the default amount and the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act need to be quashed”.
• The Court allowed the appeal.

What is Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881?

• About:
  • Section 138 of the NI Act specifically deals with the offence related to dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by the drawer's account.
  • It relates to the procedure where a cheque is drawn by drawer to discharge a debt, wholly or in part, and the cheque is returned to the Bank.
• Key Elements:
  • Liability of Drawer:
    • The drawer becomes criminally liable if the cheque bounces.
    • Criminal liability is established irrespective of the nature of the underlying transaction.
  • Conditions for Offense:
    • Essential conditions include the existence of a debt or other liability, issuance of a cheque, and subsequent dishonor.
    • The offense is not applicable if the drawer had sufficient funds, but the cheque was dishonored due to some other reason.
• Procedure for Prosecution:
  • Notice to Drawer: -
    • The payee must issue a notice within 30 days of the dishonor, demanding payment.
    • The drawer has 15 days of receipt of notice to remedy the situation, failing which legal action can be initiated.
  • Time Limit for Filing Complaint:
    • The complaint under Section 138 must be filed within one month of the expiry of the 15-day notice period.
  • Jurisdiction for Filing Complaint:
    • The complaint can be filed in a court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's bank is situated.
• Punishment:
  • Imprisonment:
    • Conviction under Section 138 can result in imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years.
  • Fine:
    • The drawer may be liable to pay a fine that may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or the debt.
• Landmark Case:
  • Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd (2001):
    • SC held that on the date when the notice sent by fax reached the drawer of the cheque the period of 15 days (within which he has to make the payment) has started running and on the expiry of the period the offence is completed unless the amount has been paid in the meanwhile.