Court, Stories, Supreme Court
 

Review: Supreme Court Rules That Convict Given Benefit of Probation Should Not Suffer Disqualification Due to Conviction

0

In this edition of the Court Judgements review, we look at Kerala HC’s order that commenting about Woman’s body as ‘Fine’ and sending text messages with sexual overtures prima facie constitute sexual harassment, SC’s order that convicts given the benefit of Probation should not suffer any Disqualification due to conviction, and its order upholding the selling rights of the owner over land earmarked for public purpose but not acquired within the statutory period, among others.

Kerala HC: Commenting about Women’s body as ‘Fine’ and sending text messages with sexual overtures prima facie constitute sexual harassment

In R. Ramachandran Nair (Accused) vs. State of Kerala & Ors (Respondents), the Kerala High Court (HC) held commenting about a woman’s body as ‘fine’ and sending text messages with sexual overtures prima facie constitute sexual harassment, and therefore HC refused to quash First Information Report (FIR) filed against the Accused.

The facts of the case were that Respondent No. 3 (R3) was working as a senior assistant at Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and the accused was working as a Sub-engineer in the same office. The accused commented the body structure of R3 as fine, and thereafter on 15, 17, and 20 June 2017, he sent textual messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of R3. Even earlier in 2013, the accused had insulted R3 in front of co-workers by using vulgar language on public platforms. A complaint was filed against this leading to the suspension of the accused for five months. Thereafter, in 2016, the accused continued harassment in the form of making phone calls and sending text messages. In April and September of 2017, the same pattern continued. Therefore, R3 complained, and an FIR was registered under sections 354 (1) (iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 120 of the Kerala Police Act. The accused approached HC seeking quashing of FIR and the proceedings initiated against him.

The accused argued that merely calling a person as having a nice body structure could not be attributed to sexually coloured remarks. The court held that quashing of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the material placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to attract the offence alleged. In the instant case, the material placed by the prosecution prima facie indicates the offence alleged. Accordingly, the prayer of quashing proceedings was rejected by HC.

Madhya Pradesh HC: Curable technical infirmities cannot be reasons to cancel job selection

In Kritika Madanloi & Ors (Petitioners) vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) & Ors (Respondents), the MP HC held that once the government job selection process and document verification are over, the entire selection process cannot be cancelled and selected candidates should not be unselected, merely because of the curable technical infirmities during the selection process.

The facts of the case were that in 2022, the respondent government issued an advertisement for filling the posts of fisheries inspector. The petitioners had applied for these posts and were selected. Their document verification process was also completed. Subsequently, the entire selection process was cancelled due to the non-compliance with ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’ where the published advertisement did not contain details of vacancies reserved for disabled persons. Accordingly, the respondents cancelled the selection of petitioners by cancelling the entire selection process.

The court held that though the selected candidates have no legal right to claim an appointment even if selected, in the present case, the cancellation of the selection process was wrong since the alternate remedies did exist with the government to cure the technical error which was committed by them.  As a remedy to the advertisement lacking details of job vacancies for the disabled, the government could have issued another advertisement containing the details of the same, instead of cancelling the entire selection process. Accordingly, the HC set aside the order of cancelling the selection process and directed for issue of appointment orders to the petitioners.

SC: Upholds the selling rights of the owner over land earmarked for public purpose but not acquired within statutory period

In Pradhan Babu & Ors (Appellants) vs. Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam & Ors (Respondents), the Supreme Court (SC) held that the ownership and selling rights over the private lands earmarked for a public purpose and are not acquired within the stipulated statutory time period would vest with private owners who had the rights over the land.

The facts of the case were that private land of 11,200 square feet was earmarked for public use by the Tamil Nadu government in Nachimuthu Nagar, Mayiladuthurai Town. A layout of the same was approved in 1978 and was revised in 1981. However, the appellants, who are the successors of private land marked for public use, claimed ownership of the property through sale and exchange deeds executed in 2009 and 2013. They argued that as per section 38(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the land becomes automatically released in the absence of acquisition. Therefore, from the year 1984, the land had automatically become the property of the original owner, since it was neither acquired nor an agreement took place between the owner and the government within 3 years from the date of earmarking of property for public purpose. Respondents, representing a residents’ welfare association, sought a permanent injunction to prevent construction on the land, contending its status as public property.

The Trial Court ruled against the appellants, stating the sale deeds were invalid due to a lack of permission to alter the land’s designation. This decision was overturned by the First Appellate Court, which held the land had reverted to private ownership after the three-year statutory period under Section 38(b) without government acquisition.

However, the HC restored the Trial Court’s judgment, emphasizing that the land’s public designation persisted despite the lapse in government acquisition. On appeal, the SC found no evidence of land’s transfer to public ownership or acquisition by authorities. It reasoned that the appellants’ actions did not violate zoning laws, especially under the 2005 layout revision, which categorized the area as mixed residential. Accordingly, it held that the appellants retained the right to sell or develop the property, as the three-year statutory period had lapsed, effectively releasing it from public designation.

Odisha HC: Under Hindu Marriage Act, Consent for Divorce can be unilaterally withdrawn by a party even after conclusion of arguments for Divorce

In Doyel Dey vs. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Ors, the Odisha HC held that the Husband or Wife can withdraw their consent to divorce even after the conclusion of divorce arguments, during which consent for divorce was given.

The facts of the case were the Husband and Wife were married in 2018. Due to dissension, they filed a divorce petition before the family court under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). However, after the arguments had culminated and four days before the judgment for issue of decree of divorce was given by the family court, the petitioner-wife withdrew her consent. Regardless of this, the family court granted the divorce, which was appealed against in the HC.

The HC held that as explained by the SC in Smt. Sureshta Devi vs. Om Prakash, any of the spouses can withdraw consent unilaterally. Since consent is the essence of the grant of decree of divorce U/S. 13-B of HMA, no decree of divorce can be passed if any of the parties withdraw such consent. Therefore, the HC had set aside the order of the family court and remitted the matter back to the same court for fresh disposal.

SC: Convict given benefit of Probation should not suffer any Disqualification due to conviction 

The facts of the case in Amit Singh (Appellant) vs. The State of Rajasthan (Respondent) were that the appellant was an accused under sections 399 & 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 3/25 ad 4/25 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted him under the IPC and Arms Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year, respectively. On appeal, the Rajasthan HC acquitted him of IPC convictions but upheld those under the Arms Act. Additionally, the court extended the benefits of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (PFA) to the appellant and granted the probation relief, subject to conditions such as maintaining good behaviour and furnishing a bond, etc. However, the HC rejected the application of benefits under section 12 of the PFA, which removes disqualifications resulting from conviction. This was crucial for his employment prospects, as the conviction was a barrier.

On appeal, the SC held that under section 12, a person who receives probation benefits under section 3 or 4 should not face disqualifications tied to their conviction. Since the HC had already granted section 4 benefits, denying section 12 would be inconsistent. Accordingly, it has set aside HC’s order and directed for the extension of section 12 benefits to the appellant.

Further, recognizing the principle of equity, the SC also extended the same benefits to six co-accused individuals who had received similar probation benefits but had not approached the Court for section 12 relief. The Court underscored that justice must apply uniformly to all similarly situated convicts.

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.

scroll