Latest news with #Act2007
The Star
15-07-2025
- The Star
Five, including 17-year-old, claim trial to human-trafficking charge in JB
JOHOR BARU: Five individuals, including an underaged boy, were charged at the Sessions' Court here with human trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. Sham Chee Fei, 33; Kuek Pei Lin, 19; Lee Chun Kit, 28; Tommy Voo Tze Hau, 27; and a 17-year-old boy pleaded not guilty to the charge before Judge Thalha Bachok @ Embok Mok on Tuesday (July 15). According to the charge sheet, the five are accused of trafficking a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy, as well as a 26-year-old man, for the purpose of labour exploitation through deceptive means at a house along Jalan Lagenda 34, Taman Lagenda Putra in Kulai, between March 23 and May 23. They were charged under Section 14 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (ATIPSOM) Act 2007, read together with Section 34 of the Penal Code, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment or a minimum of five years' jail and whipping upon conviction. They also face charges under Section 12 of the same Act, read together with Section 34 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum jail term of 20 years and a fine, upon conviction. At a different courtroom, Kuek, Voo and the underaged boy claimed trial to another two charges before Sessions Court Judge Nor Aziati Jaafar. They were accused of acting in furtherance of a common intention to produce child sexual abuse material involving the same two teenage victims, in the form of videos and images. The three accused were charged under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act (SOACA) 2017 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, which provides for up to 30 years' imprisonment and no fewer than six strokes of the cane upon conviction. At the same courtroom, another individual believed to also be a syndicate member, Abdul Rahufur Rahim Idris, 30, pleaded not guilty to a charge of non-physical sexual assault by instructing the female teenage victim to perform sexual acts on the male teenage victim. He was charged under Section 15(f) of SOACA 2017, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of up to RM20,000, or both, upon conviction. Meanwhile, Lee also pleaded not guilty to a charge of possessing child sexual abuse material consisting of two images and two videos found on his mobile phone. The offence was allegedly committed at the same house at around 11.20am on June 20 and he was charged under Section 10 of SOACA 2017, which provides for up to five years' imprisonment, a fine of up to RM10,000, or both. Deputy Public Prosecutors Nur Diyana Zubir and Nur Farah Wahida Shahudin led the prosecution while the accused were represented by their respective lawyers. The courts allowed bail at RM15,000 for Sham, RM30,000 for Kuek, RM26,000 for Lee, RM35,000 for Voo, RM20,000 for the underaged boy and RM6,000 for Abdul Rahufur Rahim. All the accused were also ordered to comply with additional bail conditions, including a ban on contacting witnesses, reporting to the nearest police station monthly and surrendering their international passports to the court. Both courts set August 13, 14, and 19 as the next mention and for submission of documents.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
DM can't issue eviction order under Sr Citizen Act '07: HC
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has held that maintenance tribunal, appellate tribunal or district magistrate has no power to pass any eviction order for evicting any relative, third party or any other person on the plea of a senior citizen or parents under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, setting at rest the different conflicting views on the issue. The bench, however, suggested an exception where the senior citizens or the parents have executed a gift or otherwise in favour of anybody on the assurance that he would take care of him but after the gift deed, he fails to fulfil his assurance . A full bench, comprising Justice AR Masoodi, Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the verdict while allowing the reference made to it on the issues emanating from a petition filed by Onkar Nath Gaur . In its judgment, the full bench observed, "This court does not find that under the Act 2007, there is any indication in any provision or rule which creates or confers special powers to take such action and pass an order of eviction against any third party or a person who may be living with the senior citizen or on the premises belonging to the senior citizen." Taking note of 'Savera Scheme' launched by the state govt, the bench noticed that senior citizens can get themselves registered at Helpline number 112 for help at any time. In the case, reference was made to the full bench as there had been conflicting views of different benches on the issue as to whether the authorities under the Act 2007 can order for eviction of relative or any other person from the property of the senior citizens or not.
Business Recorder
10-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Mohtasib entitled to act as mediator: LHC
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that the Mohtasib is entitled to act as mediator for the purpose of resolving the disputes amicably. The court passed this order on a petition of United Bank of Pakistan and set aside the order of the president of Pakistan dismissing the representation of the bank. The court said that the complaints shall be deemed pending before the Mohtasib, which shall decide the complaints afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to produce documents, affidavits and evidence, in support of their respective claims. The court commenting on the jurisdiction of Mohtasib observed that the jurisdiction of the Mohtasib is of quasi-judicial nature; hence, application and adaptation of evidentiary principles are inapplicable for such mediation proceedings. The court said Mohtasib is only entitled to receive evidence on affidavits without following evidentiary principles strictly. It observed that the Mohtasib failed to segregate cases where exercise of jurisdiction is justified and where it was not justified. The court said Mohtasib ignores and overlooks to consider the effect and consequence of 'contributory negligence' and 'comparative negligence'. Apparently, Mohtasib shifted absolute responsibility on bank by placing reliance on Section 41 of the Act 2007, the court added. The bank through its petition claimed that scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the Mohtasib has had to be construed narrowly and conservatively, since it was not a court but a tribunal, which had no authority to investigate and determine allegations of fraud, involving third-party; i.e., an anonymous caller or impersonator. The bank also claimed that two-factor authentication process was in place, wherein before payment instructions are executed a special code, One-Time-Passcodes (OTPs) is sent at the registered mobile of the customers, and unless OTP is fed in flashed window, no transaction could take effect. The customers; however, contended that bank had acted in violation of its contractual obligations, omitted duty of exercising reasonable care and skills and allowed unauthorised Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs) from their accounts. The customers also claimed that since banks owe a duty of care and diligence; therefore, the bank should inquire into payment instructions before funds are released and if the bank acted diligently all attempts to withdraw funds illicitly could be foiled. The Mohtasib in its decision held that bank failed to meet the test of burden of proof; hence, declared that bank was in breach of its duties and recommended payment of compensation equal to unauthorised amount transferred. Decision of the Mohtasib was affirmed by the office of President of Pakistan by dismissing representation of the bank. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
