Latest news with #SandeepBhatt
Time of India
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pleas of GSECL staff to retain jobs after invalid caste certificates junked
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has rejected a petition filed by 18 employees of the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd (GSECL) seeking to retain their jobs despite their caste certificates being declared invalid. The petitioners argued that they had served as Vidyut Sahayaks for 15 years and requested not to be terminated, but to instead be accommodated in the general category. They were originally appointed under the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) category, claiming to belong to the Sindha community. However, their services were terminated after a scrutiny committee found their SEBC certificates to be invalid. While dismissing the petition, Justice Sandeep Bhatt stated, "The petitioners are continued on the posts on which they were appointed on the basis of the caste certificates, which were held to be illegal by the scrutiny committee, because of which, the rights of the genuinely deserving persons of the said community were infringed. The persons who are possessing genuine caste certificates have been waiting for their turn to be appointed but due to the petitioners, whose caste certificates are held illegal, being continued, they could not be given a chance to be appointed i.e. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo the wrong are given the benefit and the right are deprived of the benefit." You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad The high court did not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the govt's decision to terminate the petitioners' services. Notably, the petitioners' SEBC caste certificates were found invalid as early as 2012—two years after they joined service. There were multiple rounds of litigation, up to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these legal proceedings, the petitioners were allowed to continue in their jobs. At one stage, a division bench of the high court suggested the govt consider accommodating them under the general category, but the administration found this unfeasible. The employees then filed a fresh petition earlier this year seeking continuation of service. In this regard, Justice Bhatt observed, "This plea is not available to the petitioners, as—actually speaking—deducting the period of litigation, they effectively worked only two years. For the rest of the years, they have been working on sympathy only."
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Indian Express
HC acquits rape convict of charges under SC/ST Act; cites amendments in Act, Supreme Court judgment
The bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt passed the judgment on May 9 while acting on a criminal appeal filed by the accused, Kanu alias Kishanbhai Machhi-Patel from Bharuch district, who, in 2016, was convicted by a sessions court for committing abduction, rape and unnatural sex on a tribal girl in 2013. He was convicted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Atrocities Act. The victim was a minor at the time while Machhi-Patel was a van driver who used to drop her to school. The HC bench observed that the victim did not state in her testimony that the accused raped her because she was from SC/ST community. The court also observed that the victim's parents nowhere stated that the accused committed rape upon their daughter intentionally because of her caste. Besides, the court took note of the investigating officer's testimony and stated that it, '…does not throw any light on the issue whether the offence was committed upon the victim because she belongs to SC/ST Caste.' It further stated that the investigating officer did not properly investigate to prove that the accused does not belong to the SC/ST community. The HC bench observed, 'The court below (Sessions court), while convicting the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act), has not properly appreciated the evidence and failed to assign sound and cogent reasons of his conclusion that why the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act is proved.' The accused's lawyer had argued that, '… the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has not been substantiated by the prosecution, in as much as, there is no evidence to prove that the accused was aware about the caste of the victim…' The HC also reproduced the Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act which reads, 'commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.' The court further pointed out in the judgment that Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was amended in 2016. As per the amendment, the words, '….on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe' have been substituted with the words '…knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe'. The HC stated that in the present case, the unamended Section 3(2)(v) is applicable as the alleged offence was committed on January 19, 2013. The court then stated, 'In such circumstances, in order to establish an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act), the prosecution is required to prove that the offence is committed on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.' The HC bench cited a Supreme Court judgment of 2017, deciding a criminal appeal of 2015, in which the apex court interpreted unamended Section 3(2)(v) and said, '…the statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence and provisions can be pressed into service only (if) it is proved that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belonged to SC/ST community and in absence of evidence proving intention of the accused in committing the offence, upon the victim only because she belongs to SC/ST community, the conviction cannot be sustained.' The HC bench, eventually, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment that convicted the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The court also ordered to refund the amount of fine, if deposited by the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. Before that, the court observed, '…in view of the settled legal position of law, there is nothing on record to show that the offence was committed because the victim belonged (sic) to SC/ST caste.' As per the complaint, Machhi-Patel took the girl to a secluded place on January 19, 2013, and raped her. Later, he dropped her home. The victim's parents approached the police and an FIR was registered on January 21, 2013, at Bharuch City Police Station. A Sessions court eventually convicted the accused for offences levelled against him such as abduction, rape, unnatural sex under the provisions of the IPC, POCSO Act and Atrocities Act. Under IPC and POCSO Act, the convict was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 9,000 was imposed on him. Under the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act, Machhi-Patel was awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 was imposed on him. Machhi-Patel challenged the conviction before the HC. But his counsel did not press the appeal as far as his conviction under the provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act since he had already undergone the imprisonment for the same. However, the accused's lawyer argued that the trial court had committed a serious error in holding him guilty of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
