The Karnataka High Court has taken several initiatives such as display of Preamble of the Constitution of India digitally in 3 Languages i.e., Kannada, Hindi and English in the Center Portico of the High Court. The High Court has installed Justice Clocks in all the three Benches i.e., Principal Bench, Bengaluru and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi. Link for Virtual Justice Clock is provided in the website of the High Court of Karnataka and in the District Court website. The High Court established Virtual Court for Traffic Challan in Bengaluru City on 6 August 2020 and launched official telegram channel of the High Court of Karnataka and for 30 Districts in District Judiciary. Telegram Chatbot is also designed and developed for the High Court of Karnataka.
The High Court launched the Official YouTube channel for the purpose of streaming all the official programs and also live streaming of the court proceedings; and also started Live Streaming of Court proceedings from January 2022. In the High Court and District Judiciary, the Hybrid mode of Video Conferencing is in the place.
The High Court so far established 25 Nos. of eSeva Kendras in various Court Complexes of the State inclusive of 3 eSeva Kendras in the Principal Bench of High Court and in the Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.
In the High Court, online payment of Court Fee, Process Fee and Copying Charges is enabled through “Online Services” having integration with Khajane -II Portal of the State Treasury. The High court has introduced portal to enable the litigants and advocates to make online application for certified copies for orders and other documents.
Surety Scrutiny Management Application is rolled out in Karnataka State Judiciary to prevent the professional sureties standing as sureties in multiple cases, and to avoid fake sureties being accepted, as a matter of routine in different Courts.
A new web Portal for Information on Appeals registered in the High Court has been developed in-house. Digitization of Court records has been started in High Court on In-House basis by Scanning and Digitization of current records. The High Court has already implemented NSTEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) Project in the entire State Judiciary.
The Indian Law Reports, (Karnataka Series) are the Authorized Reports, under the Authority of the Government of Karnataka by the Karnataka Law Reporting Council. The ILR Web Application is developed with various search options (citations, head note) and the Karnataka ILR judgments are available from the year 2018 to till date.
The Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) has been introduced. Bhoomi Integration with CIS is rolled out in all talukas of Bengaluru Rural District and Chikkaballapur District. The project for installation of CCTV taken up in 12 Districts is under progress. A dedicated Website for Commercial Courts has been inaugurated. Touch screen kiosks are installed in 3 benches of High Court of Karnataka and 580 district court complexes.
AI-backed tool, Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), is being delpoyed to translate documents/ judgments from English into Kannada.
The High Court of Karnataka has updated / translated the contents of e-Committee website in Kannada. In Karnataka, 5 District Judiciary websites have been migrated to S3WAAS. The High Court and all the Court establishments of the District Judiciary in the State are on boarded to e-Filing portal. E-filing 3.0 is now adopted in the entire State.
(Data from Indian Judiciary. Annual Report 2022-2023)
Honble Mr. Justice H. P. Sandesh is celebrating his 59th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hethur Puttaswamygowda Sandesh was born on 2 December 1964, at Hethur in Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan District to Late Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda and Late Smt. Kaveramma as a second son. He had his Primary Education at Hethur and Sakaleshpur. Secondary Education at Pre-University Government College, Sakaleshpur.
Thereafter, he obtained 5 years Law Degree from M. Krishna Law College, Mysuru University from 1987 to 1992 and started practice with Sri.K. Anantharamaiah, Senior Advocate on both Civil and Criminal Law at Hassan. Thereafter, shifted his practice to Bengaluru in 1994. He has practiced both on Civil and Criminal side in High Court and District Judiciary in Bengaluru.
He was directly selected as District & Sessions Judge in 2002 and worked as First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya and Mangaluru, Principal Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Registrar (Administration) in High Court of Karnataka, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru and Haveri, Registrar (Infrastructure), Registrar (Administration), Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka and elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 03.11.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
He got married to Smt. Hemavathi and has two daughters by name Kum. Sahana Sandesh, who is an Engineering graduate and Kum. Sneha Sandesh, who is pursuing her MBBS., and now doing her internship in M.S.Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru.
Hobbies: Reading and playing Cricket.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Justice H.P. Sandesh.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. Mere pendency of civil suit on the issue is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings when serious allegations are made in chargesheet. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. When prosecution prima facie establishes receipt of huge money by son relatable to crime of corruption by the father defence of private transaction cannot be accepted to quash proceedings. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VjYpHKDHuwuYGowWp7l7rw424
Motor Vehicles Act. Comprehensive policy covers employee of owner of vehicle involved in accident. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation for death of such employee. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/z49AJgYjojzzfYLAPHPQL6afP Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court, appeal to High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C is maintainable. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aVozOBbe9iHM7zs1Z9FMdzr1g Forgery of document produced before the Court. If the document was already tampered before its production before the Court, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) for prosecution will not apply. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/F55FMapE0UuHkjlzO6xPJoK0M Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act filed without application to condone delay. Limitation issue raised for the first time in appeal. Appellate Court can send matter back to trial court by permitting complainant to file necessary application. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qZCAffwdcFDU3U8aYxQgqWYnS Review. An error, which is not self-evident and to be detected by the process of reasoning, can not be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Karnataka High Court. (DB) https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lNWIWXA1XFG7LLXZll95CNEVi Suit for specific performance. When entire sale consideration is paid and possession of the property is also delivered to the agreement holder, the readiness and willingness issue becomes illusory. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Ypn2mPw28jITgGrOhft3XoJ7w Defamation. Onus of proving two ingredients; truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the accused. Karnataka High Court reiterates. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZlD1aqZA5JrlbuBXWDDzANb0T
NDPS. Possession could mean physical possession with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on such knowledge. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rUWN0mAFRVJK0XsGieSZNO0Ih Petition for anticipatory bail is NOT maintainable once accused appears through his Advocate and gets exemption from appearance. He can seek only regular bail. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aiBcpoGv4FpNuBFUEusXh0w3s Hindu Succession Act. Grant of occupancy rights in favour of a woman member of the joint family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be considered as her absolute property under Section 14. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MOtU3D8iHW6jgStwsEk163Hwq
Disposition property in unnatural, improbable or unfair manner and exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason is a ground to doubt the execution of a Will. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0hmXB9EYreHdsB16ElXBHM1nO Though sale in violation of non-alienation clause is voidable, if no action is taken against the purchaser or the sale for long time, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the purchaser gets his title perfected. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rmudGGMY1ZKYmKr18tS14qb3f Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Limitation under Section 34(3) commences only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party applying for setting it aside. Mere knowledge of the award is not enough. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aH9c61sGf7q9Kroj20i00yP1N Suit for partition filed several years after the property was sold by the karta or the mother is hit by the doctrine of acquiescence and the same is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XGUr2e0ZtuvnX4nzP7z8jKFFG Suit seeking direction to conduct prayers/mass prayers in Church in a particular language invoking fundamental right under Article 25 does not involve Canon Law. Plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AIRsNBR8nsiYuzzDjqTJwpoAi Suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, can be filed only before the Family Court and the District Court has no jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bZ7O71z1DJx0TROtu7TiYCR0U Suit for partition filed three years after the minor coparcener attaining majority merely pleading that alienation of ancestral properties by karta is not binding on him is barred by law of limitation. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/l8o5RTOBOhfBXLpztTaknOuwM
Counter claim need not be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court. When counter claim exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court shall return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/B7Mi3jZtu4ezANan0aMIJgkHP When the rent and the leased area are within the prescribed limit under the Rent Act, the Court must reject the plaint for ejection filed under the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6w6sKb3jogeFNktHRx1evjsHU If the premises used for commercial purpose is more than fourteen square meters, it is excluded from the applicability of the Karnataka Rent Act. This can’t be defeated on the ground that its rent is less than the amount stipulated. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/B4Cl9o7KEsMJkU5gCzUBZ62lQ
Indian Succession Act. Jurisdiction of the court to grant Succession Certificate is based on the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of death with an intention to stay at that place for a considerable length. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PGMGRehDoJ07cIohU7LZ0WNl3 Mere pendency of second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of sale agreement between landlord and tenant is not a ground to postpone the eviction proceedings. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vC9cJKGP0LnJmBG5AyOoTtxzc Suit by purchaser of property during pendency of civil suit, seeking declaration that the decree passed in the suit is not binding on him, is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iD95E3MUNh1cSQbc6XJgiyG2T
When appeal against dismissal of suit for injunction is pending, the same does not give right to the defendant to seek injunction by way of fresh suit on same the cause of action pleaded by him. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pNZS1KMst8EzUhsVOrhnJ5yZF Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained when the case diary and the status report clearly indicates that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sOTRkua6fVMsDV5xbcj4DzNGs Preventing bank from exercising its right under the SARFAESI Act in the guise of partition suit among family members with prayer for injunction is hit by Sections 35 and 36. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qnQEJz65yYylguhyuVQzPN4JE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shankar Ganapathi Pandit is celebrating his 58th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shankar Ganapathi Pandit: Born on 16th November 1965. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020. As a Lawyer he represented many statutory bodies such as BMRDA, BIAAPA, KSFC.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S G Pandit.
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)
Property Tax. Assessing authority must furnish document or report on which it relies on to determine the tax liability to the assessee failing which assessment becomes illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Order of attachment of property before award or order passed by the Registrar under Section 103 is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 105. Karnataka High Court.
KIADB Act. Though no time limit is prescribed for publication of the final notification after the preliminary notification, if the final notification is not issued within two years, the acquisition will lapse. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Power of the Tribunal or the High Court to award just and fair compensation to the victim is not taken away because of prayer for a lesser amount. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Education. ”On account of the pandemic, one cannot give up maintaining standards of education”. Karnataka High Court while rejecting plea of law students to dispense with exams. (DB)
Caste Certificate and Creamy Layer Certificate cannot be treated alike. Caste Certificate status is permanent whereas Creamy Layer Certificate status varies from time to time depending on income. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
When the statutory body fails to honor its commitment to allot industrial plot, it is bound to refund the entire amount paid by the prospective allottee. Karnataka High Court.
Writ Petition challenging provisional seizure order under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act cannot be entertained since it is subject to confirmation of the Competent Authority. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services Rules. No enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to the enquiry. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Initiation of proceedings 7 years after the sale that too after receiving the entire sale consideration is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Hindu Marriage Act. Mere inability of the wife to obey decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not a ground to dismiss her petition for divorce. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
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)
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)
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)
Property Tax. Assessing authority must furnish document or report on which it relies on to determine the tax liability to the assessee failing which assessment becomes illegal. Karnataka High Court.(DB)
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Order of attachment of property before award or order passed by the Registrar under Section 103 is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 105. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
In his letter dated 10 November 2023, Mr. S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council has severely criticized the composition of judges in the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The letter addressed to the Union Law Minister reads;
1. Thirty years ago, Justice S Ratnavel Pandian in his separate judgement delivered in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and others vs Union of India, (1993) 4 Supreme Court 441, while dealing with appointment of Judges to higher courts said;
“(i). In the context of the plurastic society of India where there are several distinct and differing interests of the people with multiplicity of religion, race, caste and community and with the plurality of culture brought together and harmonised by the Constitution makers by assuring each section, class and society ‘equality of status and of opportunity, it is inevitable that all people should be given equal opportunity in all walks of life and brought into the mainstream so that there may be participation of all sections of people in every sphere including the judiciary.
(ii) The Government which is accountable to the people has its constitutional obligation to treat all alike and afford them equal opportunity in all spheres including the superior judiciary.
(iii) It is essential and vital for the establishment of real participatory democracy that all sections and classes of people, be they backward classes or Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or minorities or women, should be afforded equal opportunity so that the judicial administration is also participated in by the outstanding and meritorious candidates belonging to all sections of the society and not by any selective or insular group.”
2. The appointment of judges to higher judiciary is guided by Article 124 and Article 217, which outline the process of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. The appointment of judges based on merit ensures that individuals with the requisite legal knowledge, experience, and integrity are selected. However, diversity in the judiciary is crucial to reflect the pluralistic nature of Indian society. Representation from different castes and religions helps in ensuring a broader perspective in the interpretation and application of laws.
3. A diverse judiciary can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable justice delivery system. Judges from various backgrounds may bring unique insights that enhance the understanding of different social and cultural issues. A judiciary that is perceived as inclusive and unbiased helps in building public confidence in the legal system. It reinforces the idea that justice is accessible to all, irrespective of caste or religion.
4. Sir, it is a fact that avoiding discrimination in the appointment process is essential to uphold the constitutional principles of equality. The judiciary, as one of the pillars of democracy, should exemplify and uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution.
5. Just to give figures within my perception.
Despite having a sizable share of nearly 15% in the population of India, Muslim representation in judiciary is alarmingly low.
Karnataka High Corut scenario.
(i) The file of a Judge from Muslim community with excellent background and whose name was cleared by High Court and Supreme Court collegium was withheld for almost two years only to be cleared after his juniors were appointed.
(ii) The latest recommendation of a Muslim candidate is deliberately withheld while his juniors in the Bar have been appointed many months ago.
(iii) There is not a single judge from the Christian community in the High Court of Karnataka. This is despite the availability of many eligible, young and bright candidates.
(iv). Out of 51 Judges, 17 are belong to Brahmin Community.
6. In the Supreme Court of India, out of 34 Judges, 14 are from Brahmin Community. Few will retire as the Chief Justice of India.
7. Let me make it clear; I have absolutely no doubt about the ability, integrity and the judicial impartiality of the judges from the aforesaid community. Their performance has been excellent. But the inclusiveness is lacking to the extent of unconstitutionality.
8. It is undeniable that 79% of all High Court Judges appointed in the past five years (2019 to 2023) come from upper elite castes, while the proportion of SCs, STs, and other backward classes never exceeded 10%. In fact, the first appointment of a Dalit Judge in the Supreme Court occurred in 1980 and the second such appointment did not happen until 1989. The tribal community had no representation until 2002.
Sir, while merit remains a primary criterion for the appointment of judges, caste and religious equality are significant considerations. Striking a balance between meritocracy and diversity ensures a judiciary that is both competent and representative of the diverse society it serves. The aim is to create a judiciary that reflects the ideals of equality, justice, and secularism as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Hence with this letter, I request you to communicate to the collegiums of the Supreme Court and High Courts to practice diversity both in letter and spirit by giving representation to all castes and religions in such manner that, no court gets packed with more than 20% from one caste.
This Sir, is the true manifestation of “Sab Ka Saath, Sab Ka Vikas..”
ಕೇವಲ ಒ0ದು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗ್ರಸ0ಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು ಇದು ಅಸ0ವಿದಾನಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಮಾರಕ ಎ0ದು ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಸದಸ್ಯ ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು ದೇಶದ ಕಾನೂನು ಮ0ತ್ರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರಬರೆದು ತಮ್ಮ ಅಸಮದಾನ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
Justice K Natarajan is celebrating his 59th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Natarajan: Born on 05.11.1964 at Bengaluru City. Studied in Primary Education at Government Primary School, Shamanna Bungalow, Sultanpet, Bengaluru and Higher Primary Education at Government Boys’ Middle School, Mamulpet, Bengaluru; Secondary Education at Central High School, K.G. Road, Bengaluru; Pre-University Education at P.U. College, Magadi Road, Bengaluru; B.Com. Degree at Acharya PatashalaEvening College, Bengaluru; and, LL.B. Degree at V.V. Puram Law College, K.R. Road, Bengaluru.
Enrolled as an Advocate on 14.02.1992; Started practice under the guidance of Sri V. Jagadish Gowda, learned Advocate, Gandhinagar, in Magistrate Courts and Sessions Courts, Bengaluru.
Started independent practice from January 1995, both in the field of civil and criminal sides, at Bengaluru and other districts of the State of Karnataka. Appointed as a panel Advocate for New India Assurance Company, Bengaluru.
Selected as the District and Sessions Judge and took charge as the District and Sessions Judge on 27.05.2002. Worked as IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi from 01.07.2002 till 2005; As an Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru from 2005 to 2008; As Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru between 2008 and 2009; As Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bellary and Dharwad Districts between 2009 and 2013; As Registrar (Review and Statistics) and Registrar (Recruitment) at High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru from 2013 to 2015; As Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Law Department, Bengaluru between 2015 and 2016; As Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru from 2016 to 2018; As Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga District from 31.05.2018 till elevation as the Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 03.11.2018 and as Permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Natarajan.
Advocate making defamatory statement in pleadings without obtaining signature of his clients cannot plead exception to Section 499 IPC. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal proceeding against Notary Public in respect of their official work without prior permission of the Central Government or the State Government is impermissible and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Failure to disburse dividend under the Companies Act, 1956 is a continuing offence. Recurring limitation extends until the payment is made. Karnataka High Court.
Unlike Company, if an offence is committed by Partnership Firm, it is an offence committed by its partners. There is no need to make Partnership Firm an accused in criminal case. Karnataka High Court.
Taking cognizance by the criminal Court cannot be set aside on the ground of defective or illegal investigation, unless illegality in investigation can be shown to have brought about miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Magistrate cannot condone delay in filing private complaint, under Section 473 Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to accused/respondent. Karnataka High Court.
“Bhang is a traditional drink and the same is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance unless it is prepared out of the substance of Ganja’. – Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. In respect of the awards passed after 2013 Act, appeal is maintainable only under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
Appointment of eminent Senior Advocate under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is a special measure to safeguard the interest of the victims. The same cannot be questioned on technical grounds. Karnataka High Court.
Matka gambling. Owner of the premises is also liable under the Karnataka Police Act though he was not present when the Police conducted the raid. Karnataka High Court.
Physically preventing public servant from discharging duties cannot be construed as part of fundamental right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Karnataka High Court.
When a partner commits criminal breach of trust in his individual capacity, the partnership firm need not be made party in the criminal proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.Cwhen appeal remedy is available. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. Once NBW is issued against accused, the complainant need NOT take any further steps till NBW is executed or returned. Complaint can NOT be dismissed for not taking steps. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal trial. In appropriate cases, the Court shall suo moto summon the document which is in possession of any of the parties under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under PMLA initiated and seized properties forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority situated outside the State. Karnataka High Court rejects the challenge for want of territorial jurisdiction.
POCSO Act. Though victim shall not be called frequently for cross examination, fair trial being a fundamental right, the court shall not deny sufficient opportunity to the accused. Karnataka High Court.
Matka and OC gambling fall under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act which are non cognizable offences. Without seeking permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the police have no authority to register FIR and file the charge.
Negotiable Instruments Act. When accused is convicted and in appeal deposits 20% of the cheque amount as per the Court direction, the complainant is entitled for release of the amount in his favour. Karnataka High Court.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Step mother can claim maintenance from the income of the property of her husband when she is incapable of supporting herself. Karnataka High Court.
Investigation agencies must communicate final report prepared by them to the first informant as per Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court directs DG and IGP of the State to issue necessary instructions.
Registering FIR for non-cognizable offences without taking permission from the Magistrate and filing charge sheet without obtaining sanction is not sustainable under the law. Karnataka High Court.
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.”
Daksha Legal 