AIDS excuse

A husband refused to grant maintenance to his wife, arguing that his wife and daughter were HIV positive. The wife, however, submitted that she had contracted the virus through a blood transfusion during pregnancy. The Delhi High Court rejected the husband’s plea in the absence of independent findings as to how his wife had acquired the disease. The high court held that denial of interim maintenance in the given situation was wholly unconscionable

(Mukesh Mittal vs Seema Mittal).

Grocer’s grouse

A grocery shop owner was convicted, fined and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for refusing to give some mustard oil as sample to a food inspector. According to Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, a person who “prevents” a food inspector from taking a sample of food as prescribed by the Act is liable to be punished. The accused filed a revision petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The court held that the meaning of the terms “refusal” and “prevention” were not identical. In order to “prevent” the food inspector the accused had to do something which would make it impossible for him to take the sample. Mere refusal to give the sample did not attract the relevant provision of the PFA Act (Ishwar Lal vs State of Rajasthan).

Bounced cheque

Legal proceedings were initiated against the legal representatives of a deceased person in a matter relating to a dishonoured cheque. The person who issued the cheque had died before a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sent to him giving him another chance to pay the amount. The defendants contended that they could not be prosecuted just because they were the accused person’s representatives. The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings and ruled that holding them responsible for the crime was an abuse of the process of the court. Section 138 of the Act made it clear that proceedings cannot be initiated against the legal representatives of the person who had issued the cheque. The court also awarded a compensation of Rs 5,000 to the representatives (Savitah H. Sorle and others vs Rajesh Damidar Sarode and others).