Cheque dishonour case - power agent can depose on behalf of complainant - SC.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a private complaint filed by a power of attorney of the complainant, the power agent can be examined if he knows the facts of the transactions between the parties.

To read the complete judgment go to:-

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfMzlnN3NtbjVmcg&hl=en

An important judgment by SC on Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court rules,

"Where an incorporeal body is the payee and the employee who represents such incorporeal body in the complaint is a public servant, he being the de facto complainant, clause (a) of the proviso to section 200 of the Code will be attracted and consequently, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses".

To read the complete judgment go to:-

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVD7MZ_yKj7ZZGM4czQya3BfMzhnMmZoN2Zncg&hl=en

WHERE IT TAKES THEM???

WHERE IT TAKES THEM???

Judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts will be in trouble if they come late or doze off during arguments. The late-comers among judges in the SC and the HCs have so far got away simply because of the absence of any mechanism to chastise these holders of constitutional posts. The government now seems to be keen on weaning the judges off their fondness for Indian Standard Time — the euphemism that creative minds have coined to describe the cultural problem that sees emphasis on punctuality as alien to Indian ethos.
A brainchild of Union law minister Veerappa Moily and drafted with assistance from Attorney General GE Vahanvati and Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, the new bill has a provision that will surely make the judges sit up and take notice — “punctuality and devotion towards duty”.
Anyone who finds a judge not punctual or not devoted to duty could lodge a complaint against that judge with an Oversight Committee, specifically provided to receive such complaints. The committee would scrutinise the complaint and its veracity. If the complaint is found to be false, then the complainant would be proceeded against and he could end up behind bars for up to five years. But if the panel is satisfied about the merits of the complaint, then it would refer it to a high-powered Special Investigation Committee for a through probe and action, which could include possible removal of the judge.
Moily said it would be shortly put before the Cabinet for its approval. However, he said accountability was a must to erase delays in justice delivery system. “There should be a full stop to delays. That type of environment will be created through the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. Judicial independence will be sustained and at the same time highest standards of accountability will be fastened,” Moily told.
The bill also gives a wider meaning to assets and liabilities of the judges.

The police to register all complaints as FIRs - Mandatory to be made by Centre.

The Centre plans to build in checks and balances in its proposal to prod states to ensure the police registers all complaints as FIRs by proposing punitive action against cops who fail to register cases as well as deterrents for false cases intended to harass innocents.
Apart from amendments to the existing laws, the Centre is also considering proposals like e-registration of FIRs through public kiosks to encourage transparency and better access to the police system.
Cops who fail to register an FIR after receiving a complaint may even face imprisonment with the government mulling stringent measures. At present, an official can be suspended for dereliction of duty, but a measure specific to registration of FIRs might be considered. The need for such penalties has also figured in PMO discussions on police reforms.
Some experts feel changes might be needed in the IPC itself. In the case of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, a police official who “wilfully” neglects his duty in registering a case can face between six months to a year in prison.
Elaborating the Centre’s proposals, a senior home ministry official said, “The idea is to ensure all complaints are treated as FIRs by cops if someone approaches them with information of a crime.”
Keeping in mind the possibility of motivated complaints and score-settling, the government is planning to amend the law to punish such offenders. “Besides contemplating changes in CrPC to act against erring cops, the government is also mulling the option of making more stringent the existing provision for deliberately making false and fabricated complaints to harass somebody,” the official said.
Though the existing law under Section 154 of the CrPC makes it mandatory for cops to register an FIR, the absence of “stringent punitive action” fails to ensure its implementation. The cop who fails to register an FIR currently only faces action under departmental misconduct, which may even mean dismissal but hardly ever does. However, there is no provision of putting such cops behind bars in cases of non-registration.
Former Haryana Police chief B R Lall agreed. He said: “More stringent punishment will ensure implementation
of Section 154 of the CrPC. Non-registration of an FIR by a policeman is a sin. Whosoever fails to register an FIR should certainly be punished severely.”
Besides the amendment in the CrPC, the government is also mulling an option of bringing changes in IPC by inserting a clause of more stringent action so that people do not file false and fabricated complaints.
Welcoming the move, retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi said: “Helping people to register crime is also important. We certainly need to finally include e-complaints as accepted FIRs.”
Bedi, as the then chief of Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D), had also recommended the concept of e-registration of FIRs to the home ministry three years ago.

Keeping pet dogs creating public nuisance not allowed - Madras High Court.

No one is entitled to keep dogs or any other animals in a residential area so as to create public nuisance, the Madras high court has ruled, and upheld an order by Coimbatore authorities directing a resident to “remove forthwith” his dogs which, according to neighbours, were causing annoyance and inconvenience to neighbours and other residents nearby.
Dismissing a revision petition filed by D Vikram, a resident of Circuit House Road, Coimbatore, justice S Tamilvanan held that it had been established in the present case that the “barking and howling” of the dogs had caused inconvenience and annoyance to the complainants, as well as others residing in the locality.
The petitioner had approached the court against the order of the sub-divisional magistrate/ revenue divisional officer, Coimbatore, who took action under section 133 of CrPC on a complaint from neighbours. The provision empowers executive magistrates to order the removal of anything that causes public nuisance.
Three neighbours had complained to the SDM/RDO that Vikram’s dogs, numbering 30, were creating nuisance by barking and howling at night and “emitting foul smell”. However, Vikram argued that the authority had failed to note that the complaints had prior animosity against him over competitions in the Kennel Club. Moreover, the complainants — Dr Jayavarthanavelu, S Pathy and R Kumaravel — were also rearing pet animals in their houses, he said.d.
However, in his order passed last week, the judge said the conduct of any trade or occupation, or keeping of goods and merchandise injurious to health of physical comfort could be construed a public nuisance.