Karnataka HC rejects govt appeal in SC/ST Act case, flags delay in filing plea
'It is always open for the special public prosecutor (SPP) to place a copy of this order before the legislature to amend the statute if need be to provide a remedy for a litigant in such circumstances, where the delay has occurred on account of reasons that are not attributable to a negligent litigant, but on account of bonafide reasons,' said Justice V Srishananda while rejecting the appeal filed by the government against the acquittal order of September 7, 2023, passed by the district and sessions court at Yadagiri.
Before this, SPP BA Belliappa contended that taking away the right of appeal only on the grounds of technicality may be harsh in a given case and substantial justice would be denied to a litigant.
The court, however, said no doubt there is merit in the arguments put forth by the SPP. Nevertheless, since there is a statutory bar which is mandatory in nature in view of the word 'shall' being found in the second provision to Section 14(2) of the Act. As such, the courts are only expected to enforce the law that has been enacted by the legislature.
Arguing on behalf of the accused, Basalingappa and five others from Shahapur, their counsel contended that the court has no power to condone the delay of more than 180 days as per Section 14-A of the Act.
The accused were acquitted for the offences under the Act and also under the provisions of the IPC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
49 years on, Jhansi man convicted in 1976 theft, cheating case; his 2 co-accused died before trial
Nearly five decades after the incident, a local court in Jhansi has convicted a 68-year-old man in a 1976 case of theft and cheating. The court of the district Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced him to the period already undergone in judicial custody and imposed a fine of Rs 2,300, following his confession. The accused, Kanhaiya Lal, a resident of Jhansi, was out on bail. He had spent nearly six months in jail across two separate terms. There was strong documentary evidence against him in the case,' said Prosecuting Officer Akhilesh Kumar Maurya. The other two accused in the case, Lakshmi Prasad and Raghunath, died before the trial could begin. According to Maurya, case records show that it dates back to when Lal was employed as a Class IV staffer at a cooperative society in Jhansi. He was accused of stealing a wristwatch worth Rs 150 and several receipt books from the office. Along with his co-accused, he was also charged with embezzling funds by forging the signatures of cooperative society members on official receipts. A case was filed by a society member at Tahrauli police station under IPC sections 457 (house-breaking by night), 380 (theft in dwelling house), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 467 (forgery of valuable security), and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating). Lal was initially arrested and remained in custody for about three months before being released on bail. 'Later, when he failed to appear before the court despite repeated summons, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him in 2022. He had claimed that his lawyer had told him the case had already been concluded, which is why he did not attend the proceedings until he was arrested following the NBW. During this second spell in custody, he again remained in jail for around three months,' said Maurya. 'During the trial, Kanhaiya Lal submitted a written confession through his counsel. Taking that into consideration, the court delivered its verdict,' Maurya added.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Loan Recovery Agents Harassing You? Know Your Rights And When To Take Action
If you have taken a loan from a bank or finance company and are, for any reason, unable to pay an instalment on time, the lender may send a recovery agent to contact you. However, there are times when recovery agents overstep their boundaries, making threatening phone calls, using abusive language, or turning up at your home to harass you. In such situations, it is crucial to understand your rights and know where and how to file a complaint. (Local18) According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), if a bank employee or recovery agent harasses a customer, whether mentally or physically, a case can be registered under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court may also direct the police to issue a strict warning to the agent, preventing further harassment. (Local18) As per RBI rules, a recovery agent must not contact a borrower before 8am or after 7pm. These time restrictions are put in place to ensure the borrower's peace and privacy. Calling on Sundays or public holidays is also considered a violation of protocol. In addition, a recovery agent is required to present a valid identity card before initiating any communication. Without this, they are not authorised to engage with the borrower regarding repayment matters. (Local18) The borrower's personal information, including details about the loan, must be kept confidential. Sharing such information with anyone else, especially without consent, is a serious breach of privacy and can be challenged legally. If the recovery agent continues to harass you or tries to forcibly enter your home, you have every right to take stronger legal action. Persistent harassment or intimidation may be classified as a criminal offence under Section 331(1) of the IPC. (Local18) 5/5 If the agent forcibly enters your home, it is considered an act of domestic trespass, and legal proceedings can be initiated under Section 330(2) of the IPC. Such actions are not only unlawful but also deeply intrusive. To seek help, you can file a written complaint at your local police station or approach the court. It is important to include complete details of the agent's conduct, such as the date, time, and what was said or done. Any phone recordings or video footage of the agent's actions can also serve as valuable evidence in your case. (Local18)
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bengaluru boy's kidnap-murder: prime suspect, hired as driver by victim's family, was acquitted in Pocso case 2 years ago
Investigation has revealed that the prime suspect arrested for the kidnapping and murder of a 13-year-old boy in Bengaluru last week was acquitted in a case of sexual assault on a minor girl in June 2023. Gurumurthy S alias Nandeesha, 25, was shot at and arrested by the Hulimavu police in Southeast Bengaluru on Friday for allegedly murdering the boy after kidnapping him as he returned from tuition classes. Sources with the police said Gurumurthy was earlier in prison from September 2020 to January 2021 in the case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act before being released on bail. Speaking about last week's case, police sources said the victim's parents – a data analyst at a multinational tech firm and a college lecturer – had hired the suspect as a driver a few times, first getting in touch with him through a rental service, and later contacting him personally. 'The driver was acquainted with the family after his services were obtained on seven to eight occasions to drive them in Bengaluru. He was initially hired via an app, but he later requested the family to call him directly to avail his services as it would help him earn more,' a source with the police revealed. Investigators believe Gurumurthy, the prime suspect in the case, allegedly used this familiarity to kidnap the boy on July 30 before demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakh from the parents. 'Gurumurthy, who has attempted to do a course in journalism as well as travel and tourism but never completed them, may have psychopathic tendencies,' a police source said, adding that 'it is possible the suspect may have enticed the boy on previous occasions as well, and had probably killed him even before placing the ransom demand after the boy resisted him.' The Bengaluru police said the victim left home on his bicycle at 5 pm to attend tuition classes. When he failed to return by 8 pm, his parents contacted the tuition teacher, who told them that the boy left at 7.30 pm. A desperate search by the family led to the discovery of his abandoned bicycle at a park in Shantiniketan Layout, Arikere, under the jurisdiction of the Hulimavu police station. After exhausting inquiries with relatives and friends, the parents filed a missing person complaint at 10.30 pm. CCTV visuals obtained by the police indicate that the boy kept his bicycle aside and got onto Gurumurthy's motorbike. The parents also informed the police that they had received a ransom call for Rs 5 lakh. The next day, the boy's partially burnt body was found near the Bannerghatta area, around 10 km from where the bicycle was spotted. After committing the murder, the suspect allegedly called his friend Gopalkrishna – who has also been arrested – to assist him in removing the body. Both men sustained bullet injuries in their legs when they allegedly tried to attack the police team in a bid to evade arrest.
