Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz celebrates his 61st birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz: Born on 22nd May 1965. Completed primary education at St. Francis Xavier’s Primary School, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, High School at St. Philomena’s High School, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, Bachelor’s Degree in Science at St. Philomena’s College, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada and LL.B. at Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya Law College, Bengaluru.
Enrolled as Advocate on 20.04.1990. Appointed as Government Pleader in the year 2003. Appointed as Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta in the year 2007. Appointed as Addl. State Public Prosecutor and worked from 2008-2012.
Appointed as State Public Prosecutor in June, 2015. Represented the Mangalore City Corporation and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
Appointed as Addl. Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 02.06.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Nawaz.
Sections 407 & 408 Cr.P.C. Case and counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident. Karnataka High Court.
IPC. Section 498A. General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. Karnataka High Court.
Owner/driver of private vehicle from which ganja was seized cannot plead absence of ”conscious possession” since the standard of ‘conscious possession’ is different in case of private vehicle with few persons known to one another. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. At the stage of considering discharge application, Court cannot hold mini trial or go deep into probative value of material on record. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Section 482. Quashing of non-compoundable cases. Guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitrary freezing of bank account by the authorities, unless there is a strong suspicion against the account holder, adversely affects the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Section 200. Magistrate can not refer complaint for investigation to Police under Section 156, after taking cognizance of the offence. After taking cognizance, he can not revert back. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Acceptance of B report can NOT be done mechanically without adverting to the material on the basis of which the said report is filed. Karnataka High Court.
Bail in NDPS cases. Though mere delay in obtaining Forensic Science Lab report is not a ground to grant bail-Prosecution shall secure the report at the earliest to prevent detention of accused for an indefinite period. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Trial. Expert handwriting opinion can be relied only when it is supported by internal and external evidence. Law on the point discussed. Karnataka High Court.
NDPS Act. Prosecution’s complaint failing to connect accused with seized material. Valid ground to grant bail to the accused.
Preventive detention under the Goonda Act. Failure to furnish translated copies of the documents to the detenue renders the detention unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act. Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to victim riding vehicle simply because he did not have driving license and insurance, especially when he was riding on the correct side of the road. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act,1988. Tribunal or Court should not apply the split multiplier in routine course and multiplier should be applied. An injured or the legal representatives of the deceased should not be deprived from getting a just compensation. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act. Tribble riding on a two-wheeler itself is not a ground to avoid insurance liability unless it is established that the tribble riding was the cause for the accident to attribute contributory negligence. Karnataka High Court.
Anticipatory bail can be granted even after cognizance of an offence is taken and the chargesheet is filed. Karnataka High Court.
Where the materials on record prima facie disclose specific, detailed, and consistent allegations of sexual assault and other offenses like physical assault and criminal intimidation, supported by a pattern of coercion, digital blackmail, and threats, the defense of a ‘consensual relationship’ or disputes over facts must be determined during a full trial, and not at the preliminary stage of quashing. Karnataka High Court.
In cases involving cyber economic crimes and corporate espionage, courts must exercise caution in granting anticipatory bail, especially when national security interests are implicated. The risk of evidence tampering and destruction justifies the denial of anticipatory bail. Karnataka High Court.
Initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not bar initiation of proceedings for the offense of cheating. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules. The one-year limit for compassionate appointments should not be strictly applied if authorities fail to act on a timely, although informal, application from an illiterate widow, as their inaction deprives eligible dependents of a fair chance to apply. Karnataka High Court.
A plaint cannot be rejected merely because the plaintiff disputes her signature on the vakalat, as this is not a ground under Order 7 Rule 11. Such a procedural defect should be allowed to be cured and cannot defeat the party’s substantive rights. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 constitutes a decree under Section 2 (2) and is appealable under Section 96. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. A daughter’s right to a share in ancestral coparcenary property is a birthright that remains unaffected by revenue-based mutation entries and sale based on such entries. Any denial of a coparcenary share based on the presence or absence of revenue entries is legally unsustainable, as title must be adjudicated based on the source of acquisition and the nature of the property rather than administrative record-keeping. Karnataka High Court.
POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC. Enemity between the families of the accused and the victim coupled with negative DNA report are factors to be taken note of. Where the victim’s testimony is inconsistent, the medical evidence is inconclusive, and there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Karnataka High Court.
Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family possesses the legal authority to alienate ancestral property without the consent of other coparceners, provided the alienation is for ‘legal necessity’ or for the ‘benefit of the estate’—such as meeting the expenses for a daughter’s marriage or family maintenance. Once such necessity is proved, the sale is binding on all members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.
A second wife, during the subsistence of her husband’s first marriage, is not a legal heir of her deceased husband. She is not entitled to a share in his property, and her right is limited only to maintenance. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 