4 Important Indian High Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Wednesday, September 26, 2018]

1. In Reference High Court of Chhattisgarh On Its Own Motion Matter Relates To Malti @ Priya @ Shani v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh [Chattisgarh High Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment - Discussed.

2. R.O. Suresh v. State [Karnataka High Court] 

Service Law - Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career.

3. Majid Gulzar v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Terrorism - The threat that we are facing is now on an unprecedented global scale. Terrorism has become a global threat with global effects. It has become a challenge to the whole community of civilized nations. Terrorist activities in one country may take on a transnational character, carrying out attacks across one border, receiving funding from private parties or a government across another, and procuring arms from multiple sources. Terrorism in a single country can readily become a threat to regional peace and security owing to its spill over ramifications. It is, therefore, difficult in the present context to draw sharp distinctions between domestic and international terrorism. Many happenings in recent past caused international community to focus on the issue of terrorism with renewed intensity. Anti-fanatism, anti-extremism, antiterrorism activities in the global level are mainly carried out through bilateral and multilateral cooperation among nations. It has, in such circumstances, become our collective obligation to save and protect the State and its subjects from uncertainty, melancholy and turmoil.

4. Girjesh @ Babloo v. State [Delhi High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - In the present case, the death due to unnatural circumstances was clearly proved to be one of homicide. There was, therefore, no occasion to resort to Section 304B IPC as regards the presumption of dowry death. The dying declaration per se was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Court, therefore, does not see any advantage accruing to the Appellant on account of his acquittal for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as far as the murder of his wife is concerned. However, as far as the injury caused to his daughter is concerned, the Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove the Appellant‟s guilt for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. As noticed earlier, the injuries on the Appellant possibly occurred when he tried to save his daughter from the fire. He is accordingly acquitted of that offence.