A man complained against a firm under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for filing a forged document in a court proceeding. The magistrate directed a senior police officer to look into the matter and report to him. The accused challenged the order and one of the reasons given was that the complainant had asked the court merely for an enquiry, not punishment. But the Bombay High Court held that a complaint was filed with “a view of taking action”. Therefore, it was obvious that the magistrate should take action as prescribed by the law. The absence of a request for taking action did not affect the legality of the complaint (Jitendra Chandrakant Mehta vs M/s Shamrock Impex Pvt. Ltd).
A man was injured after falling off the scaffolding while plastering the outside of a Delhi home. He filed a case for compensation and the magistrate sent the owner a notice under sections 288 (negligent conduct with respect of pulling down or repairing building) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by endangering the life and personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused appealed in the Delhi High Court, which discharged him. It held that since the scaffolding was erected by the labour contractor, the owner could not be charged under Section 288. He could not be charged under Section 338 either as the accident was not due to any rash or negligent act on his part (Abdul Kalam vs Government of Delhi).
An inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a man whose factory did not have employees’ insurance coverage. He was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The man challenged the order, contending that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. One had stated that the currency notes were recovered from his shirt-pocket, another said they were taken from his trouser-pocket while a third said they were recovered from his pocket. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal. Since all the witnesses agreed that the tainted money was recovered, discrepancies on minor points would not affect the order, said the court (Hari Dev Aggarwal vs State of Punjab).
SOLON
