List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Omprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Anr., has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.

What was the Background of Omprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Anr. Case?

• In this case, the petitioner challenged the seizure of his vehicle, which was allegedly involved in transporting a calf for sale in violation of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
• The petitioner moved release application before the District Magistrate, Ayodhya and the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the police and further directed to the police authorities to make the public auction of the confiscated vehicle in an arbitrary manner.
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision against the said order before the learned District and Session Judge, Faizabad, who dismissed the said revision affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya.
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad which was later allowed by the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the power under Section 451 of CrPC is not properly and widely used by the court below while passing the orders. The power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC can be exercised by the court below with judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
• It was further held that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property is allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 451 of CrPC

About:

• Section 451 of CrPC deals with the order for custody and disposal of property pending during trial in certain cases. It states that -
  • When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
  • Explanation - For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Objective of Section 451 of CrPC:

• This section empowers the criminal court to make orders for interim custody of the property produced before it during trial and inquiry.
• The objective of this section is that any property which is under the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court under just and proper order regarding its disposal.

Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955

• This Act was implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 6^th January 1956.
• This Act prohibits the slaughter of cows and their progeny in Uttar Pradesh
• The Act was amended in 1958, 1961, 1964,1979 and 2002 and 2020.
• The 2020 amendment inserted a penal provision of imprisonment of up to 7 years for physical damage to cow, and fine up to Rs 3 lakh in cases related to cow slaughter.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal in a case relating to deficiency of services under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal this in the case of Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr.

What was the Background of Najrul Seikh v. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr Case?

• The Appellant, who was a BPL (Below Poverty Line) card holder and the father of Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy, alleged negligence on the part of the Respondents, resulting in the complete loss of vision in Irshad's right eye after a cataract surgery.
• Briefly, Irshad sustained an eye injury on 14.11.2006, following which he underwent a cataract surgery conducted by Respondent No. 1, a doctor at Megha Eye Centre.
• Subsequently, Irshad experienced complications, leading to permanent loss of vision in his right eye.
• The initial complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was successful at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC).
  • The DCDRC found negligence on the part of the Respondents, ordering compensation of INR 9,00,000 to be paid to the Appellant.
• However, the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) overturned the DCDRC's decision.
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also dismissed the revision petition brought by the Appellant.
• Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Upon review, the court found significant merit in the contention that both the SCDRC and the NCDRC failed to consider the evidence of negligence presented by the Appellant.
• The DCDRC's findings highlighted lapses in pre-operative and post-operative care by Respondent No.1, supported by expert evidence.
• Despite the Medical Council's report, the court noted that it did not delve into the specific details of pre-operative and post-operative care. The courts failed to properly consider the expert opinion provided by Dr. Gupta, which went unchallenged and uncontroverted.
• Ultimately, the court affirmed the DCDRC's finding of deficiency in medical services provided by the Respondents, ordering them to comply with the DCDRC's order of compensation within one month.
• In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the NCDRC and the SCDRC were set aside, directing compliance with the DCDRC's order.
• The rights of consumer were considered paramount.

What is Section 12 of the Consumer Act, 1986?

• Eligible Parties for Filing Complaints:

Complaints regarding the sale or delivery of goods, or the provision of services, can be filed with a District Forum by:

• • Individual Consumers: Those who have purchased or received the goods or services.
  • Recognized Consumer Associations: These may file complaints irrespective of whether the affected consumer is a member of the association or not.
  • Multiple Consumers with Shared Interest: Where multiple consumers share the same interest, one or more consumers may file a complaint on behalf of all concerned parties with the permission of the District Forum.
  • Government Representation: The Central or State Government may file a complaint either individually or as representatives of consumer interests in general.
• Filing Procedure:
  • Every complaint submitted under the aforementioned provisions must be accompanied by a prescribed fee, payable as specified by the regulations.
• Initial Review by District Forum:
  • Upon receiving a complaint as described in subsection (1), the District Forum has the authority to either allow the complaint to proceed or reject it by order.
  • The District Forum cannot reject a complaint without affording the complainant an opportunity to be heard.
  • Generally, the admissibility of the complaint should be decided within twenty-one days from the date of its submission.
• Proceedings Post Approval:
  • If the District Forum allows a complaint to proceed, it may continue with the complaint in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • Once a complaint is admitted by the District Forum, it cannot be transferred to any other court, tribunal, or authority established under different laws.
• Explanation:
  • The term "recognized consumer association" refers to any voluntary consumer association duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or any other prevailing legislation.

What are the Major Differences Between the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

What are the Rights of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of X. v. Y. has held that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.

What was the Background of X. v. Y. Case?

• In this case, the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 11^th February 2010.
• The differences started emerging, as according to the respondent the expectations of dowry and consequent demands from the appellant’s family, started emerging.
• The husband alleged that the wife used to abuse him physically and financially and that because of her adamant conduct, all his efforts to make the marriage work had gone in vain.
• The husband filed a divorce petition under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) before the Family Court which was later dismissed by the Court.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
• The appeal was allowed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that vindictiveness, vexation and intolerance are the foes of coherent comprehension. Though the aggrieved person is entitled and well within their rights to avail the remedy under laws, but, crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in this rabbit hole of criminal litigations. The bullets of unjustified accusations and complaints cause such fatal wounds, leading to unendurable mental and physical acrimony, making it impossible for the spouses to live together.
• It was further held that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty but there was other overwhelming evidence on record to prove the cruelty by the respondent towards the appellant.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 13 (1) (i-a) of HMA

About:

• This section deals with cruelty as a ground for divorce.
• Prior to the 1976 amendment in the HMA, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
• It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.
• By the 1976 Amendment, the Cruelty was made ground for divorce.
• The word cruelty has not been defined in this Act.
• Generally, cruelty is any behavior which causes a physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.

Types of Cruelty:

• According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are two types of cruelty.
  • Physical Cruelty - violent conduct causing pain to the spouse.
  • Mental cruelty – spouse is inflicted with any kind of mental stress or has to constantly go through mental agony.

Case Laws:

• In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) the Supreme Court held that the word cruelty can have no fixed definition.
• In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the Supreme Court held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses not just the woman, but men as well can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty.

Family Courts Act, 1984

• This Act was enacted for the purpose of establishing Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation, and to secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs.
• Section 19 of this Act deals with appeals.