Important Indian High Court Judgments in October 2016

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance of the offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which includes the offence under Section 27 (b) (ii), cannot be taken on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OI


Detention – Copy of original documents and the translation in the language known to the detenu has to be furnished to the detenu and non-furnishing of the original documents which were placed before the Detaining Authority would vitiate the order of detention. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Detention – Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention need not record his reaction to each and every document or material. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Detention – It is not necessary to supply the documents which are not referred to or relied upon by the Detaining Authority to issue the order of detention. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Detention – Whether in-camera statements of persons/witnesses can be utilised for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority for passing the order of detention. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Judicial Magistrate First Class had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the police officer ignoring the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OI


Externment – Order directing externment should show existence of some material warranting an order of externment. Pankaj Prakash Shimpi Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OI


NDPS – Sentence should be awarded on the accused in proportion to the quantity of contraband article seized from the accused. Mangilal Jagmal Bishnoi v. State [Gujarat High Court, 13-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OD


Public Order is synonymous with peace, safety and tranquility. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Public Order – Sand smugglers on the basis of muscle and money power create terror in the vicinity and they are a menace to the public order. Thus, such new trend of offence has emerged leading to direct threat to the public order. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Public Order – The people in the locality who knew about the activities of theft of sand of the detenu would see that the detenu was even threatening government officials, hence, there would be fear and terror in their mind that if the government officials are being threatened, they would stand no chance against the detenu. Thus, though some of the acts may affect individuals, the fact that they are large number of such acts, totals up into a breach of public order. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS


Quashing of FIR – High Court can exercise the jurisdiction of quashing criminal proceedings even when the application for discharge of the accused is pending with the trial Judge. However, such power should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process of court. Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OI


Quashing of FIR – Though the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceedings quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2OI


Sand is a mineral which is openly available on the river banks or in the river, which is required to be preserved in the interest of local public. It is noticed that there are grave repercussions of excavation and rampant theft of sand from the river banks which affects the locals as the water table and water level goes down. This affects the public in general and more particularly farmers. Harish Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 10-10-2016] http://wp.me/p67iIm-2NS