The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Opinion | Laws of separation <B>Sour dates</B> <B>Dog days</B>

Today's Edition

| Wednesday , September 10 , 2008 |

Shopping

IN TODAY'S PAPER

	Front Page
	Nation
	Calcutta
	Bengal
	Opinion
	International
	Business Stocks Live
	Sports Cricket Live
	Entertainment
	Sudoku
	Crossword Enhanced!
	Jumble
	Gallery
	Horse Racing
	Travel

WEEKLY FEATURES

	Knowhow
	Jobs
	Telekids
	Careergraph
	Personal TT New!
	7days
	Graphiti New!

CITY NEWSLINES

FEEDS

RSS
My Yahoo!



Archives Web

ARCHIVES

Since 1st March, 1999

THE TELEGRAPH

-	About Us
-	Advertise
-	Feedback
-	Contact Us

STREET LEGAL

Laws of separation

A woman lodged a complaint against her husband in 2006, alleging offence under Section 498-A (Cruelty to wife by husband and his relatives) after discovering that he had married again. But the woman and her husband had been living separately since 1996 after having entered into an agreement for divorce as per custom. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the complaint and held that irrespective of the validity of the customary divorce, such a complaint could not be addressed when the couple had been living separately for 10 years. The legal validity of the customary divorce should be a subject matter of civil proceedings and a case under 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could not be entertained, the court said. (M. Saravana Porselvi vs A. R. Chandrasekar and others)

Sour dates

The standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged) Commodities Rules (1977) requires the declaration of names and addresses of manufacturers on the packages. The products of the petitioner (deseeded dates) were seized as the packets did not bear such a declaration. Directing the release of the articles, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that dates being fruits, they could not be deemed manufactured items. And in such a case the petitioner was not required to mention such particulars. (Lion Dates Pvt Ltd vs Controller Legal Metrology Hyderabad and Another)

Dog days

The Supreme Court has stated that evidence based on the use of sniffer dogs is inadmissible. The case arose when a sniffer dog was brought in by the police to sniff out evidence near the dead bodies of the wife and daughter of the accused. The dog went straight to the accused. Earlier the accused had betrayed no emotion on the death of his wife and daughter. Setting aside the order of conviction, the court held that while the service of sniffer dogs may be utilised for investigation, it could not be taken as evidence for establishing guilt. (Dinesh Borthakur vs State of Assam)

SOLON