Justice Vijaykumar A Patil celebrates his 48th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil was born on 14.10.1975. Native of Shedbal, Kagawad Tq, Belgaum District. He completed primary & secondary education at native place. Obtained B.A. degree from Shivananda College, Kagawad. Graduated in Law from University Law College, Dharwad. Completed LL.M. from Post Graduate Department of Studies in Law, Karnataka University, Dharwad & secured 2nd rank.
Justice Vijaykumar A Patil enrolled as Advocate on 16.07.1999 and practiced at Bengaluru, joined the chambers of Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri. He practiced in various branches of Law. He worked as High Court Government Pleader & Addl. Government Advocate for a period of 11 years. During the practice, he represented as Standing Council for KIADB, Karnataka Slum Development Board, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation & Mysore Urban Development Authority.
He worked as Honorary Lecturer at Sheshadripuram Law College and KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru.
Justice Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil was sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 09.02.2023.
Important judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A Patil.
When the State takes over private land of a person who has undisputed title over it, the owner cannot be asked to approach the civil court for compensation. Refusal to pay compensation violates constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bERYifzXGcQO8qX7vDVPlXsOW
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CcE8QyK6U6NgWpzIomK5Unuqn Land grabbing. If the possession over land is traceable to a registered sale deed, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XRxBJuFYPSQ0ctwCSh8GbyjZc
“Political rallies have some elements of dissemination of knowledge & information to the public at large and they generate lot of political awareness in the voting masses”. Karnataka High Court on PM Modi’s Road Show. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NwNGlnf5JKYgPzQWOr0Kmd3S6
Obtaining approval or sanction from the Government is not mandatory while issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of lands in favour of the Karnataka Housing Board. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/QKFjIvT1x5DfTFO1kDFcut5Ed
When the State takes over private land of a person who has undisputed title over it, the owner cannot be asked to approach the civil court for compensation. Refusal to pay compensation violates constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bERYifzXGcQO8qX7vDVPlXsOW
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CcE8QyK6U6NgWpzIomK5Unuqn
ಮೊನ್ನೆ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮ್ ಮಸೀದಿಯೊ0ದರ ಮು0ದೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ವೇಳೆ ಹಿ0ದೂಗಳು ಮಸೀದಿಗೆ ಮ0ಗಳಾರತಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಹಾಗೂ ಇನ್ನೊ0ದು ಗಣೇಶ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ವೇಳೆ ಮುಸ್ಲಿ0 ಸಮುದಾಯದವರು ಹಿ0ದೂಗಳಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಸಾದ ನೀಡುತ್ತೀರುವ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಕ0ಡು ಖುಶಿಯಾಯ್ತು.
ಕೆಲ ದಶಕಗಳ ಹಿ0ದಿನ ಮಾತು. ನಮ್ಮ ತಾಲೂಕಿನ ಗಣೇಶ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ, ಮದುವೆ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ಆಥವಾ ದೇವರ ಜಾತ್ರೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೂ ಸಾಬರ ಮಸೀದಿ ಮು0ದೆ ಸಾಗುವ ಅನುಮತಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಕಸ್ಮಾತ್ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ಆ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಲೇಬೇಕಾದರೂ ಮಸೀದಿಗೆ ಮು0ಚೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಮಸೀದಿ ನ0ತರ ಅರ್ಧ ಕಿಲೋಮೀಟರವರೆಗೆ ನಿಶ್ಯಬ್ಧ ಕಾಪಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಘೋಷಣೆ ಇರಲಿ ಸ0ಪ್ರದಾಯದ ಓಲಗ ತಮ್ಮಟೆ ಕೂಡ ನಿಶಿದ್ದ.
ಮೊದಲು ಇದು ಬರಿ ಆಜ಼ಾಮ್ ಕೂಗುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದದ್ದು ಕಾಲಕ್ರಮೇಣ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲೂ ಪಾಲಿಸಬೇಕಾದ, ಒ0ದು ಉಸಿರುಕಟ್ಟುವ ವಾತಾವರಣವಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದನ್ನುಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಹಳ್ಳಿ, ತಾಲೂಕು, ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯವಸ್ತಿತವಾಗಿ ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಪಾಲಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ಕ್ರಮೇಣ ಈ ಪದ್ದತಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಅಸಮದಾನದಿ0ದ ಪ್ರಾರ0ಭವಾಗಿ ತೀವ್ರತರವಾದ ಹೊಡೆದಾಟ ಬಡಿದಾಟದ ಮಟ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಯಿತು. ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷದ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ, ಪ್ರತಿ ಜಾತ್ರೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆಗಳು ಯುದ್ದಭೂಮಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆಗೊ0ಡವು.
ಮು0ದೆ ”ಹಿ0ದೂ ಜಾಗೃತನಾಗಿದ್ದಾನೆ”, ”ಜೈ ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ್” ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಘೋಷಣೆಗಳು ಮೊಳಗುವ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಮಸೀದಿ ಮು0ದೆಯೇ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ತೆಗೆಯುತ್ತೇವೆ ಅ0ತ ಹಿ0ದೂಗಳೂ, ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೂ ಬಿಡಲ್ಲ ಅ0ತ ಸಾಬರೂ ತಮ್ಮ ದೇವರುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಭದ್ರವಾಗಿ ನಿ0ತರು.
ನ0ತರ ಯಾರ ಕೈ ಮೇಲಾಯಿತೊ, ಯಾರು ಸೋತರೋ ಅ0ಬುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಬೇಡ.
ಇ0ದು ಕಾಲ ಬದಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಸಾಬರ ಮಸೀದಿ ಮು0ದೆ ಹಿ0ದೂ ದೇವರುಗಳ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುವುದಿರಲಿ, ಎರಡೂ ಪ0ಗಡಗಳೂ ಸೇರಿ ಎರಡೂ ಪ0ಗಡಗಳ ಹಬ್ಬ ಆಚರಿಸುವ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಇ0ದು ಹೊಸ ಪರ್ವ ಜನಿಸಿದೆ.
ಈ ಮನಸ್ತಿತಿಯನ್ನು, ಈ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಸಮತೋಲನವನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡೋಣ. ಬಡ ಸಾಬರೂ ಹಿ0ದೂಗಳೂ ದೊಡ್ಡಮಟ್ಟದ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಆಟವನ್ನು ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಈಗ ಬೀಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಹೊಸ ಗಾಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜನಿಸಿದ ಹೊಸ ಸ್ವಚ್ಚ ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ ವಾತಾವರಣವನ್ನು ಮು0ದಿನ ಪೀಳಿಗೆಗಳಿಗೂ ಹಬ್ಬಿಸುವ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡೋಣ.
Justice Miss. Justice J.M. Khazi is celebrating her 60th birthday today.
Hon’ble Ms. Justice J. M. Khazi: Born on 8th October 1963, at Indi the then Bijapur (now Vijayapura) District to Late Smt. Rashida Begum & Late Sri. M.A. Kazi as their eldest daughter. She has an elder brother and 3 younger sisters. Her Father Late Sri. M.A. Kazi served throughout Karnataka and retired as Public Prosecutor. She had her Education upto PUC at Badami, Gadag, Navalgund, Ballari and Mandya. She did her B.Sc. and LL.B at Shivamogga and LL.M. through Kuvempu University (Distance Education).
She started practice at Vijayapura and Bengaluru on both Civil and Criminal side. At Bengaluru practiced in the office of Sri.Ashok R.Kalyanshetty. She was selected as Civil Judge & JMFC during October 1993 and worked at Tumakuru, Somwarpet, Mandya, Bengaluru and Nelamangala. Promoted as Senior Civil Judge during 2003 and worked at Bengaluru and Sagar.
Justice Khazi was promoted as District & Sessions Judge during July 2009 and worked as District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and Tumakuru, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Registrar (Administration) and Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Presiding Officer, Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru, KSTAT, Bengaluru and now working as Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka.
Justice Khazi was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 25.03.2021 and Permanent Judge on 30.09.2022.
Justice Khazi’s hobbies include Reading, gardening and listening to music.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Miss. Justice J M Khazi.
Reference and incorporation in a contract. Mere reference to another document in a contract will not incorporate terms of the document into the contract. Karnataka High Court. (DB))
Essential Commodities Act. Initiation of criminal proceedings without making company an accused are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Civil dispute being converted into criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law. Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated by apartment owner against the office bearers for disconnecting electricity supply.
Pendency of civil case is not a ground to dismiss criminal proceeding. Criminal case regarding forgery of Will cannot be dismissed on the ground that the finding in criminal case will have a binding effect in pending civil suit. Karnataka High Court.
Re-Compensate forest land taken four decades ago for Harangi Reservoir Project. Karnataka High Court directs the State Government to handover 11,722 hectares of Revenue lands to Forest Department. (DB)
Hindu Law. Separated son has No right in ancestral property left by kartha. He can claim share as Class-I heir after death of Kartha in notional partition. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
CLARIFICATION – Second wife, married during life time of first wife, getting share in the property of deceased husband. Karnataka High Court Judgment. (DB)
Hijab is NOT part of essential religious practice. Prescription of uniform is a reasonable restriction. Govt order is valid. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Appellate Court cannot decide criminal appeal before it by taking into account evidence recorded in another case even though it might be a cross-case or a counter case. Karnataka High Court issues exhaustive guidelines. (DB)
Grant of benefit by statutory authority inadvertently or by mistake to few persons does not create right to other similarly situated persons to claim such benefit. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Reference and incorporation in a contract. Mere reference to another document in a contract will not incorporate terms of the document into the contract. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Essential Commodities Act. Initiation of criminal proceedings without making company an accused are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Civil dispute being converted into criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law. Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated by apartment owner against the office bearers for disconnecting electricity supply.
Pendency of civil case is not a ground to dismiss criminal proceeding. Criminal case regarding forgery of Will cannot be dismissed on the ground that the finding in criminal case will have a binding effect in pending civil suit. Karnataka High Court.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court in Bineesh Kodiyeri vs Directorate Enforcement, Writ Petition 13261 of 2020 decided on 16 March 2021 had declared that the Enforcement Directorate – Investigating-arresting Officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 must inform and provide copy of arrest order and grounds of arrest to the person being arrested and that mere oral information would not be sufficient.
The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India & Ors, Criminal Appeal Nos 3051-3052 of 2023, (Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar) decided on 3 October 2023 approved the declaration of the Karnataka High Court (though not specifically referring to it). The Supreme Court has held it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.
The Karnataka High Court dealt with the issue as follows;
“The question is as to whether the arresting officer is required to only inform the grounds of arrest or provide the same in writing to the person arrested for an offence under the PMLA. The PMLA has various provisions relating to the offence of money laundering as regards which stringent punishments are prescribed. Furthermore, in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA for the person arrested to seek bail, it is required that such a person establishes before the said Court that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him.
The expression ‘inform him of grounds of such arrest”- under Section 19(1) of the PMLA would have to be read in conjunction with Section 45 of the PMLA and cannot be read in isolation.
There could be a loss in communication if the said information is provided orally, inasmuch as the accused being a legally illiterate person or a layman, if the accused were not able to understand the grounds of arrest if orally informed, he would not be in a position to convey or communicate the same to his near and dear ones or his lawyers so as to satisfy the requirement of Section 45 of the PMLA. More so when the requirement for granting bail is placed at such a high standard.
To enable the accused to make out a case for bail, it is required that there is no loss in communication, and the exact reasons or grounds of arrest are required to be conveyed to the accused. This, in my considered opinion, can only be done in writing, in a language known to the accused as also in English.
In terms of Section 45 of PMLA, such a person can seek bail and obtain bail only if such a person were to establish that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. The defence of the accused and/or claim that the accused is not guilty in order to be granted bail by a Court can only be adjudicated by the Court on a touchstone of the contents of the arrest order and reasons for arrest or grounds for arrest.
This works in two manners. Firstly that it is only if the grounds for arrest are available with the accused, the accused can endeavour to contradict the said grounds so as to, at this stage, prima facie establish he/she is not guilty of such an offence. Secondly, the court can take into consideration the reasons for arrest as stated in the grounds for arrest where the standard is reason to believe that the arrestee is guilty of the offence and juxtaposing the same to the requirement provided under Section 45 of the PMLA for grant bail, i.e. for the accused/arrestee to establish that the said arrestee is not guilty of the said offence. This, in my considered opinion, cannot be done without both the reasons for arrest, i.e. grounds for arrest, as also grounds for the grant of bail being placed before the said Judge, which would essentially mean that the same is to be in writing and be capable of being produced by the accused before such Court.
There is considerable force in the submission made by Sri. Aravind Kamath learned Senior counsel that one of the safeguards put in place by the legislature to prevent abuse of the powers vested with the Authority under the PMLA is providing grounds of arrest to the arrestee. These grounds of arrest would not only have to be provided to the arrestee but also would form part of the case diary or the investigation file. Thus unless there are grounds sufficient to arrest a person which is recorded in writing, no person could be arrested under the PMLA. This by itself would be a safeguard so as to prevent any arbitrary exercise of power and/or an indiscriminate arrest being carried out by the authorities under the PMLA.
In that view of the matter, unless the accused is aware of the exact grounds of arrest and/or as to what the said accused is required to answer to, so as to establish that he is not guilty of the offence, he would not be able to meet the requirement of Section 45 of the PMLA. I am of the considered opinion that it would, but, be required for the Arresting Officer to provide the grounds of arrest to any person being arrested under PMLA in writing, mere oral information would not be sufficient. In that regard, necessary acknowledgement from the arrestee would have to be obtained in writing confirming the receipt of the same in writing.
As observed above, since it is required that the arresting officer inform and provide the arrestee with the arrest order and grounds of arrest in writing, it would be required that the investigating officer establish the positive fact of having provided the same in writing, since the negative cannot be established by the arrestee. Hence, in such cases, apart from obtaining the acknowledgement of the arrestee on the said arrest order and grounds of arrest, it may also be advisable for the arresting officer to email the said arrest order and grounds of arrest to the arrestee’s email account, to the e-Mail account of the lawyer and or the near and dear ones of the arrestee, if the lawyer or the near and dear ones are provided with a physical copy of the arrest order or grounds of arrest to obtain their acknowledgement of having received the same. The court before whom the arrestee has been produced to mandatorily enquire about the providing of the physical copy of the arrest order and grounds for the arrest in writing and record the response of the arrestee in the order sheet under the signature of the arrestee and the like.“
The Karnataka High Court held that in terms of Section 19 of PMLA, the Investigating Officer or the arresting officer is required to inform and provide a physical copy of the arrest order and grounds of arrest to the person being arrested. Mere oral information would not be sufficient.
The Supreme Court observations.
“That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out andexplained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign thedocument. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (supra). Such a precarioussituation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized officer in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorized officer.
We may also note that the grounds of arrest recorded by the authorized officer, in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, would be personal to the person who is arrested and there should, ordinarily, be no risk of sensitive material being divulged therefrom, compromising the sanctity and integrity of the investigation. In the event any such sensitive material finds mention in such grounds of arrest recorded by the authorized officer, it would always be open to him to redact such sensitive portions in the document and furnish the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation.
On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”
The 22nd Law Commission headed by Justice Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi has taken note of the Karnataka High Court judgment in State of Karnataka vs Basavaraj Yellappa Madar, Criminal Appeal 100515 of 2021 decided on 4 November 2022 (Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G. Basavaraj) while recommending amendments to POCSO Act.
The Karnataka High Court while disposing the Criminal Appeal observed, inter alia, that “the aim and objective of POCSO Act is to protect the minor children from sexual exploitation and it is made clear that a minor cannot provide consent, the minor under POCSO Act being a person under the age of 18 years. Having come across several cases relating to minor girls above the age of 16 years having fallen in love and eloped and in the meantime, having had sexual intercourse with the boy, we are of the considered opinion that the Law Commission of India would have to rethink on the age criteria, so as to take into consideration the ground realities”
The Law Commission, while referring to Karnataka High Court Judgement recommends amendment to POCSO Act to address situations where there is approval, even if not explicit consent in the eyes of the law, from children aged between 16 and 18 years who are in intimate relationships. The Commission says that such cases should not be treated with the same severity as those that were originally envisioned to fall under the POCSO Act.
Therefore, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to introduce guided judicial discretion in the sentencing of such cases to ensure a balanced approach that safeguards the best interests of minors.
The Karnataka High Court raised concerns about the increasing number of cases involving minor girls who are above the age of 16 years engaging in romantic relationships, eloping and having sexual intercourse with boys.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also drew the Commission’s attention to the problems while enforcing the POCSO Act. The Karnataka High Court pointed out the injustice that occurs in cases of statutory rape where there is de facto consent from the girl. The Commission was requested to recommend amendments to the POCSO Act, granting discretionary power to special judges.
The Commission has recommended amendments to Section 4 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as the inclusion of a proviso and an explanation in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The report has recommended that after sub-section (3), sub-sections (4) to (9) should be added. These additional sub-sections would grant discretion to the courts to reduce sentences in cases where there is approval, though not statutory consent, of a child above sixteen years of age.
The report also suggests renaming Section 8, which currently provides punishment for sexual assault, as Section 8(1). Additionally, sub-sections (2) to (7) should be incorporated to empower the courts with discretion to reduce sentences in similar cases.
The Commission recommends that courts take various factors such as the child’s tacit approval, the age difference between the accused and the child, the accused’s lack of criminal history, whether or not a child was born out of the offence and other circumstances like family acceptance or marriage into account.
The Commission suggests that offenders falling under the new sub-sections introduced in Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act should be included within the scope of Section 18 of the JJ Act.
It has noted that even though Exception 2 of Section 375 exempts husbands from liability for consensual intercourse with their wives above 15 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the age should be read as 18 years, making such acts rape under this provision.
The Commission stresses that providing reprieve under the POCSO Act for cases of adolescent romantic relationships would be ineffective without a corresponding amendment in Section 375 of the IPC, as lovers and husbands of minors would still be punishable under this provision.
The delay in electing/selecting the Opposition Leader in Karnataka has damaged the institution against corruption in Karnataka. While everyone including BJP political party blamed the Congress Government for destroying the Lokayukta institution by creating Anti Corruption Bureau, the inaction on the part of BJP in electing the Opposition Leader has further weakened the institution of Lokayukta. This is despite the fact that the Karnataka High Court struck down ABC and restored powers to Lokayukta. Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 deals with appointment of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta. We are presently concerned with appointment of additional Upalokayukta. A person to be appointed as an Upalokayukta shall be a person who has held the office of a judge of a High Court for not less than five years and shall be appointed on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, the Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Thus consulting the Leader of the Opposition in Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Leader of the Karnataka Legislative Council is absolutely necessary for the appointment of additional Upalokayukta. The BJP political party lost power and the new Congress Government was formed in May 2023. Even after almost 5 months BJP has not been able to elect the opposition leader in both the Houses. Both the Lokayukta and the Lokayukta handle the works like Departmental enquiries; Public and private grievances with regard to all activities of the government; Enquire into allegations against public servants; Conducting raids, Investigating trap cases; Visiting districts for open hearings; Meeting walk-in complainants on a daily basis; Calling aggrieved persons and concerned officials to discuss issues raised; Examination of 200 files every day; Preparation of final notes under Section 12 (3) of the Act before making recommendations; Advice and preparation if case is challenged before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Tender legal advice on fitness of case for appeal; Monitor vigilance department’s work, police and statistics. It is submitted that as on today there is only one Upalokayukta to assist the Lokayukta in the above duties. While the government was pleased to appoint a Lokayukta and one Upalokayukta, it has not appointed the second Upalokayukta as sanctioned in 1984. Previously there were two Upalokayuktas. After Justice Ananda retired only Justice Phanindra is handling major workload. If the second Upalokayukta, as mandated in 1984, is not appointed, the institution of the Lokayukta will be unable to continue its mandate due to huge pendency thus affecting its usefulness. There is a large increase in complaints over the course of several years and months. Speedy remedy to people’s grievance is required to keep the people’s confidence in the institute of the Ombudsman. There are thirty-one districts in the State of Karnataka. The Upalokayukta has to visit every district at least once a month to give justice to the institution of the Ombudsman. He is required to spend at least three days to open hearings, meet petitioners, complainants, among others. Thus, we can see it is impossible for one person to cover the whole State in one month. Even in the matter of constitutional courts like the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, the judiciary has lamented at lack of judges to dispose and decide the pending cases. Pendency of cases is the main reason for the institutional failure in rendering speedy justice to the aggrieved persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as stressed the need for filling up of the vacancies in the judicial positions from the civil courts level till the Supreme Court of India. The institution of Lokayukta is a unique body to redress the grievances of citizens against mal administration and corruption. It is a matter of fact that the grievances against the governmental machinery is writ large and the reasons are not very difficult to perceive. In this regard an efficient body fully equipped with infrastructure and manpower is absolutely essential. Samaja Parivarthana Samudaya has filed a public interest litigation seeking appointment of additional Upalokayukta and the High court of Karnataka has already issued notice to the State Government. The BJP political party must elect the Leader of the opposition at the earliest to strengthen the institution of Lokayuka. The internal bickering in the BJP has led to crumbling of a citadel and the BJP, which blamed the Congress for weakening the institution of Lokayukta, is answerable to the public at large.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar is celebrating his 54th birthday today.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar was born on 28:9:1969. His father Shri. Rajashekar Chandanagoudar was a noted lawyer with vast experience in civil and land reforms laws. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar enrolled as an Advocate on 11:2:1994. He practiced under his father and conducted Civil, Constitutional, Service and Land Reforms mattes.
He was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11:11:2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.
Within short span of time, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has earned the reputation of being one of the finest Judges having great judicial temperament and balanced approach. Justice Hement Chandangoudar is a keen golfer.
If land falls within Corporation limits, there is no requirement to obtain permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for diverting agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for complete span of life. Consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Application for clarification of sentence is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
N.I. Act. Section 138. When cheque is delivered for collection within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court where the payee maintains the account, proceedings cannot be initiated in other place. Karnataka High Court.
When a Company nominates a Director under Section 49(2) of the Legal Meteorology Act, 2009, initiation of penal proceedings against other Directors is not permissible. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 147. Person travelling on mud-guard of a tractor is NOT an authorized passenger. Persons working on ploughing/crushing machines attached to tractor are NOT employees. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Customary divorce among Panchamasali Lingayats, though recognised under Section 29-2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same is required to be proved strictly in accordance with Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Tenancy created under registered lease deed by grandfather during minority of grandson. Same is binding unless the lease is challenged within three years after grandson attains majority. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition. Challenge to land acquisition can be rejected by courts on the ground constructive resjudicata and res judicata. Issue regarding fraud already adjudicated binds subsequent proceedings. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/d0X2XjoAT0FZy9dBVCr00kYdK
Undue influence, unless specifically pleaded in the plaint, cannot be assumed by the court based on evidence during trial. Karnataka High Court reiterates. (DB)
RTC entries in revenue records. Deputy Commissioner exercising power under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot sit over the validity of registered title deed. Karnataka High Court.
FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be registered against woman alleged to be in illicit relationship with complainant’s husband unless essential ingredients of the offence are made out. Karnataka High Court.
Defamation. When a class of persons are mentioned to have been defamed and if such a class is indefinite, the complaint cannot be entertained. Karnataka High Court.
Offence by Companies. A person cannot be prosecuted unless he is shown to be in-charge of the Company as Managing director or Director. Karnataka High Court.
Mere inducement to invest in money doubling scheme in the absence of dishonest intention to cheat the investor from the inception does not constitute either cheating or criminal breach of trust. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3oMjL1hUwePHrwgQKdCuH291G
Bar under Article 363 of the Constitution to enquire into disputes arising out of merger agreement or instrument of accession between Ruler of an Indian State and the Government applies even to Revenue proceedings. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yZJbLUEItqe8gQKqumFdIspAj
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Serving Government analyst report on accused after expiration of drug’s shelf life deprives valuable right of the accused to get the drug re-analysed. Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed Karnataka High.
When there is no clause prescribing minimum quantity of electricity to be purchased by Govt Electricity Company under Power Purchase Agreement, licensee cannot be restrained from injecting power generator into the grid. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9aG4cQkVlyxZi56ReWF8AyKPy To constitute offence under Section 3(1)(j) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the accused must have employed the person for manual scavenging knowing fully well that he belongs to SC & ST community. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mZUpgeGYTeOmehaWrp2Biuydi
In the absence of restraint order, mere pendency of a civil dispute cannot be a ground to refuse sanction of layout plan. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/F6HU9nIbvjrPpdW8MODukc77I Karnataka SC-ST – PTCL Act. Delay of seven years in applying for restoration of the granted land without any explanation for the delay. Application is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iPmyEjO62jHJSYJMlhDobhicD ”Elections are the essence of democracy”. Karnataka High Court directs the Govt to provide reservation for women in the wards having greater women population and to hold elections at the earliest. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qLfvuiN3dyJsV8kOwPrk4aoGj When a statutory appeal is rejected as not maintainable, the appellate authority cannot make observations on merits touching the rights of the parties. Karnataka High Court.
Tax cannot be levied on telecommunication towers erected by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India undertaking) on the immovable property belongs to it, or the Union of India save as the parliament may by law provide. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3Xwq9jTHKJs4U2YhMz9c4TS7e Suit for partition by woman coparcener is not maintainable if the ancestral property was sold before coming into force of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/P2MxaZz15WlWu4IzMoyjPRtLJ Companies Act, 1956. Offence under Section 217 is not a continuing offence. No criminal prosecution can be launched beyond six months in view of Section 468(2)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/jbYeopNntWxR4HGvEeA8QGsuN Suit filed by Bank for recovery of loan amount due from its debtor is not barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/EtQAj7uYjnpy37Xz5wrQNCc8G Labour Court awarding partial backwages for proven unauthorised absence of workman for a long period runs contrary to the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ and cannot be justified under Section 11-A of the I D Act. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1Gsp3yu2p9Oki7haHwebZSsBk “Prohibition of outdoor advertisement on non-residential private properties violates Articles 14 & 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India” declares Karnataka High Court. Directions issued to take strict action against unauthorised hoardings. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/dOi0F3IThoyzWowsPSuvo7ObN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar celebrates his 60th birthday today
Justice K Somashekar was born on 15:9:1963 in a remote village in Chamarajnagar District. It is interesting to note that he was the first person to become a lawyer from his village. He enrolled as an advocate on 27:1:1990 and practiced in Mysore and Chamarajanagar Districts on both Civil and Criminal sides.
Justice K Somashekar was directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge on 17:6:1998 and served as Additional Districts and Sessions Judge at Bijapur (Vijayapura); City Civil Court, Bangalore and Principal District and Sessions Judge at Uttara Kannada, Karwar District; Hassan; Bangalore Rural District, Chitradurga and Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and also served as Registrar Judicial and Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka.
Justice K Smashekar was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14.11.2016 and Permanent Judge on 03.11.2018.
Important judgments delivered by Justice K. Somashekar. Criminal Trial. Wife cannot be dragged into criminal case simply because she is signatory to cheques along with her husband who is involved in illegal business transactions. Such practice should be curtailed. Karnataka High Court.
Mere payment of premium amount before occurrence of accident will not cover liability if the insurance policy is issued with effect from the time after the accident. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WdjePhtI9Mcj3G1HCapAgHfzq “Victim compensation is the social philosophy and legislative implication. Failure on the part of the prosecution to secure a conviction is not a ground to deny compensation”. Karnataka High Court orders compensation to minor girl orphaned due to crime. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rVLjpm32tgvn6VSRoo9WKlKwL Presentation of undated cheque after three years from the date of the transaction by adding the date. Proceeding under Section 138 NI Act will be clearly barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/p92RNehbaj4FcwTvBLmbkS7ee Criminal trial. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a crucial role. Motive is a double-edged weapon, which will cut either side of the case. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
“Case of the prosecution in entirety is found to be doubtful and is full of inconsistencies”. Karnataka High Court acquits the accused in RTI activist Lingaraju murder case. (DB)
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Wife roping in entire family members of husband with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7nibuO3Mhrop4kisSTLTYTvWp When the prosecution fails to prove its case, benefit of the acquittal can be extended by the appellate court even to the accused who has not preferred appeal challenging the order of conviction. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qosie13nmYln8Tx9PKcErf0xo Criminal Law. Though due to passage of time and memory loss, witnesses deviate from their Police Statements, but when such discrepancies make the foundation of the prosecution case shaky, the Court has to take strict note thereof. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6hF6iROyju8TkYh7k5DLfVSAY
Criminal law. To impose the extreme punishment, all the three tests; Crime test, Criminal test and Rarest rare test must be satisfied. Karnataka High Court converts imprisonment till last breath of life to life imprisonment. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/D6g80YgX9nWSZCkF8cSdIm4iT Criminal Law. Subsequent voluntary statement of the accused cannot be admissible in evidence and recovery to that effect amounts to “rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery.” Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pJvQkJitCHqzCvwPtaXmOQYzs
Justice Jyoti Mulimani is celebrating her 55th birthday on 15 August 2023.
Hon’ble Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani was born on 15.08.1968. She enrolled as an Advocate on 31.07.1992. She handled all types of Civil Cases. Hindu Law, Probate, Company, Arbitration. Constitutional, Tax & Tariff. Electricity, Education, Service, Motor Vehicles, and Excise matters. Justice Jyoti Mulimani served as a Mediator and Trainer in Bengaluru Mediation Centre for the past 12 years. Justice Jyoti Mulimani was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11.11.2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.
Important judgments delivered by Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani. Civil court cannot enhance compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act towards diminution value if the Deputy Commissioner has already awarded under a particular head. Karnataka High Court.
Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can invalidate Gift only if the Gift has condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/chIQKtpYvZ42859RWCLS4ft83 Hindu Law. Gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property either to a stranger or to his relation without the consent of the other coparcener is void. Comprehensive Judgement of the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav celebrates his 51st birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav was born on 3rd August 1972.
As an Advocate, he conducted many matters involving environmental issues and lake preservation on probono basis. His concern towards preservation of lakes helped saving many lakes in and around the city of Bangalore. He played a major role in preservation of Kappattaguda in Gadag district.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020.
Important judgments delivered by Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav. Compensation towards tortious acts of State entities. Concurrent remedy no bar to exercise writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court awards compensation of Rs. 1.19 Crore for death and injury due to electrocution. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vPZub6Too0AvAiDc5t8eMkfhO
Daksha Legal 