Sentence in drugs case upheld by HC
PANAJI: The high court of
The accused was nabbed by the anti-narcotic cell at Baga on March 21, 2005. While 60 gm of charas was found on him, another 1.825 kg of the contraband substance was recovered from a bag that he was carrying.
The accused had claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by the police. However, the trial court held him guilty and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
Subsequently, he challenged the trial court's order in the high court.
When the petitioner's lawyer asked the panch witness to repeat what the police officer had said to the accused in Hindi when he was apprehended, he could not repeat the statement. Thereafter, the appellant's advocate told the court that the panch witness could not be relied upon.
The court however observed, "The panch witness may not have been very fluent in Hindi and may have been unable, with passage of time, to reproduce the exact Hindi words used by police officer. This cannot be taken as a ground either to doubt his presence or the veracity of his version."
HC seeks details of action against tainted officers
Amar Vivek Singh, counsel of the petitioner, Rajesh Inder Pal Singh and others said the court has told the civic body to furnish details of action taken against officers who have been chargesheeted for irregularities in the past.
The court order has landed the civic body authorities in an embarrassing position as in the last few years, vigilance cell of local bodies department has issued chargesheets against more than a dozen officials of the branch posted at key places for discrepancies in construction of buildings.
Officers against whom the chargesheets have been issued include senior town planner (STP) Balkar Singh Brar, municipal town planner (MTP) Hemant Batra and SS Bhatia, assistant town planners (ATPs) Kanwaljeet Kaur, Harpreet Singh Ghai, Monica Anand, building inspector Aitbaar Singh, head draughtsman Madanjeet Singh and draughtsman Ashok Kumar.
Action on these chargesheets continues to hang fire as owing to patronization of political leaders, these officers, who are facing charges of irregularities, enjoy plum postings in the civic body.
Against ATP Kanwaljeet Kaur, four chargesheets are pending, three are pending against MTP Hemant Batra, two against STP Balkar Singh Brar, MTP SS Bhatia, ATPs Monica Anand and Harpeet Singh Ghai while one each is pending against head draughtsman Madanjeet Singh and draughtsman Ashok Kumar. However, despite such record of chargesheets, all these officers continue to be in positions of power, getting postings in the city. While Brar, Bhatia and Batra are retaining their posts, ATP Kanwaljeet Kaur was appointed at A-zone and Ghai at C-zone whereas Monica Anand is on long leave and has gone abroad.
Official machinery under scanner
l MTP Hemant Batra and SS Bhatia, ATPs Kanwaljeet Kaur, Harpreet Singh Ghai along with others, have been chargesheeted for discrepancies in construction of Leela Hotel (old name Walia Guest House) in the city
l STP Balkar Singh Brar and building inspector Aitbaar Singh have been chargesheeted in a case of building violation in Janta Nagar
l STP Brar, ATP Monica Anand and Harpreet Singh Ghai have been chargesheeted for alleged building violation in Model Town locality
l ATP Kanwaljeet Kaur has been chargesheeted for alleged violation of building bylaw at Mata Rani Chowk.
l ATP Kanwaljeet Kaur, along with others, has been chargesheeted in another case pertaining to construction of a building at Fountain Chowk that ignored bylaws
l ATP Kanwaljeet Kaur, along with others, was suspended for allowing building bylaws violation at
In a case of discrepancies in construction of a multiplex, MTP SS Bhatia, ATP Monica Anand, draughtsman Ashok Kumar and junior draughtsman Madan Jeet Singh were chargesheeted
HC slams fine on 3 BJP councillors for abusing law process
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/hc-slams-fine-on-3-bjp-councillors-for-abusing-law-process/522310/
Express News Service
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 at 0417 hrs IST
Ahmedabad The Gujarat High Court has imposed fine of Rs 25,000 each on three BJP members of Morbi Nagarpalika for abusing the process of law.
The three BJP councillors were disqualified from the Nagarpalika membership by a competent authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act.
The trio had approached the Gujarat High Court five times after the defection proceedings were initiated against them. The three councillors have been identified as Devabhai Avadia, Nirmalaben Hadiyal and Geetaben Rathod.
According to the details of the case, one Anupsinh Jadeja had filed a petition to initiate defection proceedings against four BJP councillors who did not follow the mandate of the party in the election of the president of the civic body in July 2007.
Following the petition, the designated officer conducted hearing of the same and ultimately disqualified the four from the membership of the Nagarpalika under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act.
Interestingly, some members had filed petition against the four under the provisions of the Anti-Defection Law before Jadeja also. However, the petition was rejected then on technical grounds.
Now, during and after the proceedings of the two petitions, three of the four members approached the Gujarat High Court five times which played a role in delaying the defection proceedings against them.
On the fifth time, they challenged the order of the designated authority to disqualify them under the provisions of the Anti-Defection Law.
Taking a very serious view of their abuse of the legal process which delayed the anti-defection proceedings against them and giving detailed reasons for his judgment in the matter, Justice D A Mehta upheld the disqualification of the three members.
“Considering the history of litigation virtually resulting in frustration of the intent, purpose and object of the statute, the petition deserves to be rejected with costs. Each of the petitioners shall pay costs quantified at a sum of Rs 25,000 each,” Justice Mehta further ordered.
Govt may seize properties of corrupt babus
The PC Act, which provides for a maximum jail term of seven years for a convicted official, has no provision empowering the government to seize the unaccounted for property.
``We are seriously considering a proposal for amending the PC Act to allow the state to confiscate an official's property obtained through corrupt means after a court convicts him,'' law minister Veerappa Moily told TOI.
However, the law ministry is still examining when to invoke this drastic measure -- after a court convicts a corrupt official or after the convicted official exhausts his appeal remedy.
In either case, the amendments will not be as drastic as demanded by
The law ministry officials fear that such a provision would surely be misused by vindictive politicians after a regime change to wreak vengeance on officials close to the previous government.
Section 12 of the PC Act provides for a jail term between six months and five years along with a fine for government officials found guilty of corruption charges for the first time. However, the punishment gets a little stringent for habitual offenders under Section 14, which provides for a minimum two years imprisonment and a maximum of seven years in jail.
Chief Justice of
``One prominent suggestion is the inclusion of a statutory remedy that will enable confiscation of properties belonging to persons who are convicted of offences under the PC Act. The rationale behind it is that if a public official amasses wealth at the cost of public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets,'' Justice Balakrishnan had said.
However, adding a note of caution, the CJI had said: ``Such proposals need to be thoroughly examined for their constitutional compatibility before being enacted in the form of legislation.'' This is what the law ministry is doing at present.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
SC sticks to its guns
http://www.dailypioneer.com/205638/SC-sticks-to-its-guns.html
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Despite demand to increase working days
Despite demands by the Law Commission and Parliamentary Standing Committees to curtail the rather “long vacations” enjoyed by judges of the apex court, Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan has approved the 2010 calendar with less than seven months of working days.
Compared to last year when the Supreme Court had 190 working days, the calendar for the coming year has exactly the same number of working days with the total holidays (besides Saturdays and Sundays) totaling 93 as compared to 92 the previous year.
The Law Commission had lately recommended that with the new pay scales available to judges from this year, there must be commensurate increase in the number of working days as well.
The calendar adopted for 2010 has been prepared by the Chief Justice of India under the Supreme Court Rules 1966. As per the Order II, Rule 4(2) of the Rules, the period of summer vacation “shall not exceed ten weeks.” The Rules even provide for the total number of holidays not to exceed 103 (excluding Sundays not falling in the vacation and during holidays).
Since the rules do not permit the court to sit on Saturdays or gazetted holidays, it was in 2006 that the summer vacation of the court got reduced from eight weeks to seven weeks and the total number of working days increased from 185 to 190 days, the same which continues till date. During the vacations, the court does provide skeletal service by appointing vacation Benches, a Bench of two judges to decide old appeals and attend to urgent matters.
This measure has often been presented as an antidote for the mounting pendency.
But after judges have begun to get more pay through the recent law brought in by the Government, the issue of long vacations has got revived. The Law Commission in its 230th report submitted in August this year stated, “With the increase in salaries and perks of the judges, it is their moral duty to respond commensurately. Considering the huge pendency of cases at all levels of judicial hierarchy, it has become necessary to increase the number of working days.”
The Government had lately passed a law granting three-fold hike in the salaries of Supreme Court judges from Rs 30,000 per month to Rs 90,000, in keeping with the revised pay scales of Government servants under the Sixth Pay Commission. The Chief Justice of India got a revised pay scale of Rs one lakh per month.
Creating a link between vacations and pay hike, the report went on to suggest, “Considering the huge pendency of cases, vacations in higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10-15 days and court working hours should be extended by at least half-an-hour.”
Successive parliamentary reports even linked the “long vacation” of the Supreme Court with the colonial legacy and recommended that in the modern era long leave by judges was not reasonable taking into account the huge pendency.
But the counter argument presented by those subscribing to the Supreme Court’s calendar suggest that judges work through the holidays, often writing judgements and studying material linked to the cases presented before them.
By refusing to alter the working days of the apex court judges, the message emanating from the judiciary is clear - pendency has to be resolved by adding more courts and appointing more judges and not by making the higher judiciary work for more number of days.
Speaking at the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers Conference held in August this year, the Chief Justice of India had stressed this aspect and sidestepped the controversy surrounding long vacations of the Supreme Court. The CJI insisted on augmenting judicial infrastructure and filling up posts as the solution to overcome judicial arrears. Till January 1, 2009, he indicated a shortfall of 280 judges in the High Courts and 3,129 judicial officers in subordinate courts.
At present, the average disposal per judge in the High Court comes to 2,504 cases in a year. The similar figure per judge in the subordinate courts comes to 1,138 cases. Compared to countries abroad, this is far beyond the total disposal rate of the entire judges of a court taken together.
Lower courts told to return cases outside their jurisdiction
Posted: Monday , Sep 28, 2009 at 0235 hrs
The Delhi High Court has directed Metropolitan Magistrates in the Capital who are dealing with cheque bounce cases to return the cases in which they have taken cognizance without having territorial jurisdiction to entertain them.
The court order was made in connection with a PIL filed by Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) which said Magistrates dealing these cases were not able to dispose off any as they were flooded with cheque bounce complaints mostly filed by banks and financial institutions even though the “cause of action” and the accused persons were outside Delhi.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Manmohan said, “We direct return to the complainants for presentation in the court of competent jurisdiction all those criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that are pending in court of Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi in which cognizance has been taken by them without actually having.”
Centre decides to withdraw case against Quattrocchi
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/centre-decides-to-withdraw-case-against-quattrocchi/522852/0
Posted: Tuesday , Sep 29, 2009 at 1743 hrs
The two-decade old Bofors pay-off case may finally be buried with the Centre on Tuesday telling the Supreme Court that it has decided to withdraw case against Italian Businessmen Ottavio Quattrocchi.
Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium told a bench, headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishanan, that all efforts to extradite Quattrocchi, an accused in the case relating to payment of Rs 64 crore as commission in the Howitzer deal, have failed.
He said the CBI has taken the decision to close the case by also taking into account Delhi High Court judgement of 2004 which had held that no case of corruption was made out in the Bofors deal.
Subramanium said the Government came to the decision after taking into account all the facts of the case.
The Solicitor General's statement in the court came under immediate attack from the BJP and the lawyer who is pursuing the Bofors case in the Supreme Court while the Congress Party said that after all the case has to come to a closure.
Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who had moved the apex court in January, 2006, against the defreezing of Quattrocchi's bank account in
"Quattrcocchi has been treated by this government as the son-in-law of this country," he said about the businessman, who is now the sole accused in the case after the Delhi High Court on May 31, 2005 quashed charges against other accused.
"CBI and the entire government is trying to close the case," the advocate, who has challenged the High Court's 2005 verdict after CBI decided not to go for an appeal against the decision, said.
The Solicitor General, who once objected to the description of Quattrocchi as "son-in-law", said the CBI had tried to get him extradited following the Red Corner Notice issued against him but failed in its efforts.
He said a call had to be taken for the closure of the case and the CBI and the Centre took into consideration the February 4, 2004 verdict of the High Court which held that there was not a rubble of evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such no appeal was filed against the decision.
Subramanium said nothing survived in the appeal filed by Agrawal against the May 2005 verdict of the High Court.
"The Central Government has consented for withdrawal of the prosecution of Quattrocchi," the Solicitor General said adding that "we have to take a call on the matter and government has taken a call after considering all aspects".
The Bench, also comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan observed that "if the matter is not alive in trial court what can we do. Then there is no necessity to keep the matters pending in this court. It appears that they (CBI) want to withdraw the case."
However, Agrawal said that the petition and his applications have to be heard by the apex court which during the previous hearings have considered the case as "serious".
"The entire government is trying to protect Quattrocchi. Somebody has to protect the rule of law. My petition and applications have to be heard by this court," he said assailing the two verdicts of the High Court.
He alleged that CBI was not serious in its effort to extradite the Italian businessman against whom the Red Corner Notice was withdrawn a year ago.
Agrawal submitted that the May 31, 2005 verdict of the High Court was illegal and the then Attorney General offered an advise not to challenge the decision in the High Court.
The verdict was challenged by Agrawal after CBI failed file an appeal within the mandatory 90-days.
Quattrocchi, 69, has never appeared in Indian Courts.
The apex court was informed that Quattrocchi's case was coming up for hearing before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on October 3.
SC halts illegal construction of new places of worship
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-halts-illegal-construction-of-new-places-of-worship/522815/
Posted: Tuesday , Sep 29, 2009 at 1500 hrs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that there shall be no fresh construction of places of worship at public places throughout the country.
The restriction would apply to temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras and places of worship of all other communities, a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma said in an interim order.
The Bench said its order would be enforced till the issue relating to construction of places of worship at public places is finally resolved by the apex court.
The apex court also said that the fate of existing places of worship shall be dealt by the respective state governments on a "case to case" basis.
The Bench passed the direction after Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium informed the apex court that the Centre and the states had reached a consensus that there shall be no fresh construction of places of worship at public places.
The apex Court had on July 31 directed the government to ensure no place of worship is allowed to come up by encroaching public place.
The direction to the Centre came during the hearing of a petition challenging the Gujarat High Court order of May, 2006, by which the Municipal corporations in the state were directed to demolish all illegal structures including places of worship on public roads.
SC issues notice to Centre on black money related docs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-on-black-money-related-docs/522767/
Agencies Posted: Tuesday , Sep 29, 2009 at 1144 hrs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a plea seeking disclosure of certain vital documents in connection with the issue of black-money stashed in foreign banks.
The apex court sought the response from the government on allegations by eminent jurist Ram Jethmalani and others that authorities were withholding vital documents relating to the case.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium placed before a bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, the status report, in sealed cover, relating to investigations carried by the Enforcement Directorate against Pune-based businessman Hasan Ali Khan against whom the Directorate has lodged a complaint for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
During the hearing, the SG said the status report will indicate that Letters Rogatories have been issued to some countries in connection with the case of Khan.
The court posted the matter for hearing in December.
The PIL filed by Jethmalanai and five others, including former Punjab DGP K P S Gill and former Secretary General of Lok Sabha Subhash Kashyap, have alleged that the government was not taking action to bring back black-money stashed in foreign banks.
Judicial Accountability – an Illusion or a Reality
http://www.natashawingbooks.com/judicial-accountability-an-illusion-or-a-reality.htm
Name: Sukant Vikram
Class : 5th Year BBA LLB
College : Symbiosis Law School, Pune , India
Topic—- Judicial Accountability- An illusion or a reality
Introduction —-
“Rex non potest peccare” —- The King can do no wrong
In a ‘democratic republic’ power with accountability of the individual enjoying it, is essential to avert disaster for any democratic system. The accountability must be comprehensive to include not only the politicians, but also the bureaucrats, judges and everyone invested with public power. Power and position in the society come attendant with responsibility, and every incumbent of a public office must remain constantly accountable to the people, who are the repository of political sovereignty.
Accountability of the judiciary at every level, in a democracy cannot be doubted. The need of an effective mechanism for the enforcement of judicial accountability, when needed, is a felt need and must be accepted.The method by which judges are selected has become a matter of considerable concern for the citizens of our state. Although judicial elections may always has been important and vital process, the selection process is now coming under particular scrutiny. Some believe that although imperfect, the process in place works well enough to need only minor adjustments; others claim that a major overhaul, even scrapping, of the system is necessary. Certainly attention to the issue is warranted: The provisions in place for judicial accountability all threatened by the spread and deepening of problems that, if left unattended, will erode the public’s confidence in our judiciary.
Objective —- A democracy is highlighted by the fact that each and every part of it is accountable to each other. In this situation, an independant judiciary which is the backbone of the efficient functioning of the democracy in
Main Text —-
Appointment of Judges—
The High Court judges are appointed by the president after consulting the chief justice of India, the governor of the state concerned and, in case of appointment of a judge other than the chief justice, the chief justice of the high court to which the appointment is to be made as provided by the article 217(1).
Every judge of the supreme court shall be appointed by the president after consultation with such of the judges of the supreme court and of the high court’s as the president may deem necessary for the purpose as laid down under article 124(2).
The words “appointed by the government in consultation with the Chief Justice” in the Constitution were interpreted as “appointed by the government on the advice of the Chief Justice” in the various judgments by the Supreme Court as cited:-
S. P Gupta—-
A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court extensively considered the issues of Independence of Judiciary in relation to the appointment and transfer of Judges, the issue of appointment of the Additional Judges of the High Court, the issue of the privilege of the Government against disclosure of State documents and the scope of judicial review of the powers exercised by the President.
While deciding the issue of the locus standi of the petitioning lawyers who had challenged the Circular of the Law Minister and short-term extensions of Additional Judges on ground of attack on the independence of the judiciary, Justice P.N. Bhagwati while upholding their right to do so held that where the effected persons are really helpless, the Supreme Court will not insist on a regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited individual espousing their cause. The Court will readily respond even to a letter addressed by said individual espousing the public cause.
A bunch of cases were decided together in the present case which were raised in two batches of writ petitions filed in different High Courts which were transferred under Article 139-A to the Supreme Court since they raised common issues of great constitutional importance. One writ was also filed in the Supreme Court. Several more related issues were raised and discussed during the hearing. Each of the Judges delivered a separate judgment.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India
This case directed to constitute a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two questions referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength.
Impeachment—-
Removal of judges can be done through an impeachment procedures provisioned in the article 124 hereinafter stated as -:
Article 124 (4) of Indian Constitution: A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
But the practical problems faced during the impeachment of any judge has been highlighted in the following instances.
The first ever impeachment—-.
Justice V. Ramaswami
The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the
Justice M.M. Punchi
This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.
In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.
Investigation—-
Free and fair investigation is one of the basic pre-requisite of a free democracy. In consonance with this principle, the free and fair investigation of judiciary has become of an immense significance in contributing to the public faith in the effectiveness and impartiality in of the judiciary.
Justice K.Veeraswamy the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court was charged for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a case was filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Madras dismissed his Petition for quashing of the Case against him and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for deciding certain questions of law. The Supreme Court while deciding the case against the delinquent Judge laid down strict guidelines to protect the independence of Judiciary according to which no F.I.R. can be registered against a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court without the sanction of the Chief Justice of India in the matter. It was held that the Supreme Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction of only dispute settling, and that the court has been a law maker and it is the courts responsibility and duty to apply the existing law in a form more conducive to the independence of the judiciary. It was also said that any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching impact on the judge and the litigant public therefore there is need of a judicious use of taking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Right to Information & The judiciary—-
There was a time when the Courts in
Conclusion
Middle class Indians love their Judiciary.If someone were to draw up a list of institutions that they still believe in, I suspect only two would qualify — the Indian Army and the judiciary. If soldiers protect the nation’s physical well-being, the courts are the gatekeepers of its conscience. And we hate our politicians so reflexively that in any battle between the government and the judiciary, even if we don’t quite follow the contours of the debate, we cheer the courts on.
Small wonder then that we blindly support every attempt by the judiciary to insulate itself from external control. This is because we believe in the independence of the judiciary.
But should this independence mean freedom from accountability?
It may be a worn-out cliché, but after all these years, it’s a question still in search of an answer: who will judge the judges?
Recently the cabinet approved a Bill to amend the Judges Inquiry Act and to create a National Judicial Council that will examine all complaints of corruption and misdemeanours against judges. It has been sold as an example
of cleaning up the system and making it more transparent. But other than some stray comments by a handful of lawyers, no one has dared question the new terms by which
In other words, the judiciary will remain answerable only to itself.
Then, there are the omissions in the new Bill: the Chief Justice of India is entirely exempt from the scrutiny of the judicial council and the council’s powers will not extend to complaints against retired judges.
But for the short comings of the composition of the commission it may be very easily said that it is an absolute necessity to put in place a transparent system for selecting judges for appointment. They should also have an investigative machinery at their disposal, through which they can evaluate complaints against judges and proposed candidates investigated. Such an institution is more likely to result in the selection of proper candidates and would introduce at least a modicum of urgently needed accountability in the judiciary. So maybe we can have a way of treating corruption in higher judiciary. Such measures have to be institutionalised. And they can be only institutionalised without damaging the general credibility of the judiciary as a body by having in place (with almost immediate effect) an office called the office of “Judicial Ombudsman”. I believe this is the only way in whic h we can accommodate the need for keeping clean and bright the image of our High Judiciary. Once people know that legitimate complaints are being entertained in confidence, they will be made to the authority concerned in confidence. And once they see something is done we will no longer have to see the sorry spectacle of scandalous and un-substantiated allegations being made openly in the press about individual Judges.
However, one must appreciate that the immunities provided to ensure judicial independence are intended for the benefit of the litigants in particular and the citizens in general. Therefore it is also acknowledged that judicial accountability if stretched too far can seriously harm judicial independence and thus it is essential that we strike the right balance between the two. Relying on the strong tradition of sharing of ideas and experiences amongst the judiciary across the commonwealth is perhaps one of the optimum methods of arriving at such a balance.
So, it becomes even more imperative that the men and women we trust so implicitly should not be scared of our collective judgment.
Explaining the decision to drop the archaic and colonial prefix of ‘Your Lordship’ from the court rulebook,
Let’s take that image further. Only God is above the law. All human beings — even those we admire and respect — must be held accountable.
And finally, judges are as human as you and me
Human trafficking from India
http://www.samaylive.com/news/human-trafficking-from-india-to-be-probed/659277.html
(Source: IANS)
Published: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 at 17:09 IST
"The NCW has been been deeply disturbed with the recent spurt of missing girls in NCR (National Capital Region). In view of this, we have taken up this issue and inquiry commitees have been constituted," a senior official at NCW told IANS.
The official said a probe committee will look into the alleged trafficking of women to Middle-East countries from Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh while the other will inquire into the mysterious deaths of women in south Gujarat's cotton fields allegedly trafficked via
"The NCW has found that Nepali women were also trafficked to and from
Recently, NCW chairperson Girija Vyas said 62.5 percent of 378 districts were affected by trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation.
"There are 1,794 identified places of origin or source areas from where women are trafficked and 1,016 places where the commercial activities thrive," Vyas had said.
As per the last national level report on human trafficking by UNDP in 2007, in
Around 66 percent women in Gujarat, 64 percent in Tamil Nadu, 55 percent in
Ex-CFO of Satyam, PW auditors guilty: ICAI
MUMBAI: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has found two top officials of Satyam Computer and four auditors of Price Waterhouse prima facie guilty in the Rs 7,800-crore fraud case, a top ICAI official said on Monday.
Besides, the apex body of chartered accountants has also found audit firms — Price Waterhouse, Kolkata and Price Waterhouse, New Delhi — prima facie guilty of misconduct.
“The director (discipline) has found two officials of Satyam Computer, Price Waterhouse and its four auditors prima facie guilty of professional misconduct in the Satyam case,” ICAI president, Uttam Prakash Agarwal, said.
The opinion of director (discipline) was considered and has been approved by ICAI’s disciplinary committee, Agarwal said. Two Satyam officials found “prima facia guilty” are ex-CFO V Srinivasu and senior V-P, internal audit cell, V S Prabhakara Gupta.
The disciplinary committee also found four auditors from Price Waterhouse, Bangalore — S Gopalakrishnan, Srinivas Talluri, P Shiva Prasad and C H Ravindranath prima facie guilty of professional misconduct, Agarwal said.
Hyderabad-based Satyam Computer plunged into a crisis after its founder-Chairman B Ramalinga Raju admitted to fudging of accounts of his company to the tune of 7,800-crore.
Agarwal said that Srinivasu failed to carry out the statutory duties as Satyam's CFO, while Gupta failed in carrying out the internal audit of accounts of the firm.
Prasad and Ravindranath were part of the audit team for Satyam Computer while Gopalakrishnan and Talluri signed the balance sheet, he said.
The disciplinary committee will now issue notices to all those found prima facie guilty for their written statements which are to be submitted within 30 days," Agarwal said.
If any person found prima facie guilty do not submit statements within the stipulated period, ICAI would further start the process of personal hearing by issuing notices, he said.
2 new cases against City group, but some investors still back firm
MUMBAI: Two fresh cases against City Limouzines and its sister concern City Realcom have been registered at Amboli and Cuffe Parade police stations in the last two days. The company has been accused of cheating by defaulting on its payments to the investors.
The cases were registered on the complaint of investor Kirti Patel. The company, under various schemes, offered 48% returns on investments but began defaulting in August this year.
Sources said that the fresh FIRs would give a boost to the investigations as till now there was only a single case against City Limouzines registered by the economic offences wing (EOW) in 2007. The Supreme Court has imposed certain restrictions on the conduct of probe in this FIR.
Meanwhile, on Monday a huge group of investors gathered at the company's Nariman Point office to extend support to the firm's chairman, S M Masood. Every member present at the meeting sported a headband bearing the firm's name on it, embodying the fight to save the reputation of the company which has been blamed of duping all its investors of lakhs of rupees.
Prasad Mhatre, who organised the meeting, said, "We have had no complaints with this company ever since we started investing with them and promptly received our returns every month. If the company was fraudulent, S M Masood would have escaped to another country by now. He is still here and facing all the flak, so we are here to support him,'' he said.
They demanded that EOW de-freeze the company's account. "If this is done, then our problems will be solved because the investors will keep getting their returns,'' said one of the investors present at the meeting. Their second demand was for the government to appoint a special team to investigate this matter. "The EOW has been investigating this case for quite sometime now and we have no results as yet.
Additional commissioner of police (EOW) Sanjay Saxena said, "We have not imposed any ban on the company's business. Our investigations are on.''
Graft-accused cops charged with extortion too
MUMBAI: The anti-corruption bureau (ACB) has added the serious charges of extortion, kidnapping and wrongful confinement against three policemen from Oshiwara police station, who are being investigated in a bribery case.
The police had arrested constable Yashwant Patil and middleman Ajay Thakur on Saturday when sensing trouble they tried to return Rs 2 lakh to Vishwas Parsanjit, allegedly involved in video piracy. The duo besides assistant police inspector Rajesh Padvi and constable Patekar had allegedly kidnapped Vishwas and extorted money from him, a police official said. Padvi, Patekar and their `close aide' Rafikbhai are still at large.
Patil and Thakur had come to return money to Vishwas after learning that deputy commissioner of police (Zone 9) K Prasanna was conducting a departmental inquiry into Vishwas's allegation.
ACB officials said this could be just the tip of the iceberg as Vishwas has mentioned the names of 21 video pirates and the amount the police collected from them. The list is part of the FIR.
Padvi is the nephew of former deputy commissioner of police Sudesh Padvi. The accused policemen had allegedly extorted Rs 4 lakh from Vishwas, his brother Samel and his friend Patre.
Padvi was the investigating officer in the video piracy case and had arrested two persons in July this year. The police picked up four others who were employees of another suspect Chandan Patre. Meanwhile, Patre contacted his friend Vishwas who approached Rafikbhai for help. Rafik collected Rs 2 lakh to be passed on to the police for the release of four suspects. The police, however, put them in custody saying Rafik did not pass on the amount.
When Vishaws turned up in court for the release of his employees, Patil and Patekar took Rs 70,000 from him and detained him in the police station. Vishwas managed to cough up another Rs 1 lakh. The police released him but picked up his brother Samel and demanded another Rs 1 lakh for his relase. He paid the amount and lodged a complaint with commissioner of police D Sivanandhan who ordered an enquiry.
TN's first pvt forensic lab opens in city
CHENNAI: In June, when Shanthi (name changed) began feeling weak by the day, she thought her husband was causing her some harm for the sake of her property. The local police told her they would not be able to register a complaint against him.
Forensic expert Dr R Selvakumar then suggested she test her hair, nail and blood for toxicity. Two days later, the lab report showed an increased lead content in her blood, an indication that she was being slowly poisoned. Armed with the medical report, she again went to the police who arrested her husband. The case is being investigated.
Almost the same week, an insurance firm asked Dr Selvakumar to say if one of its clients, whose family had submitted a claim saying he was hit by a train, had really died in an accident. "When a person is accidentally hit by a moving train, he would be thrown off and the kind of injuries are different. In this case, we saw a clear cut in the leg and neck. He was lying down on the track attempting suicide," said Dr Selvakumar.
He and his colleague Dr N Srinivasa Ragavan decided to set up, for the first time in the state, Synergy medico legal Foundation (www.synergymlc.in), that was launched on Monday. It will, they claimed, help men scientifically clear doubts about their wives' fidelity, help clients claim insurance bills, help insurance firms weed out fake claims, assist doctors draft counters in courts in negligence cases and even help lawyers frame questions for cross-examination in criminal cases.
"We have been working in the sector for several decades. We often notice that advocates do not cross-examine doctors. We can even offer key questions and points to lawyers and the relevant Sections of IPC or CRPC they can be mentioned under. The reports foundation gives a report that may not be valid in the court but as experts we can be produced as witness. But as experts, we can be produced as witness," said Dr Ragavan.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment