In a sexual harassment case, one of the points raised on behalf of the accused was that since there was a delay in filing the complaint, the evidence of the complainant was concocted. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that since the victim was away from her family, it was natural for her to take some time before deciding on a suitable course of action (Satyendra Dayal Khare vs State of Maharashtra).
The accused challenged the order of the magistrate, who, acting on a complaint that a cheque had been dishonoured, issued a process that directed the accused to face trial. The accused contended that such a process could not be issued because the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder, and not by the payee, as required under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Bombay High Court held that a power of attorney holder could file a complaint if he had the full knowledge of facts (G.J. Packaging Pvt Ltd vs M/s S.S. Sales and another).
An employee was injured and subsequently died when he tried to prevent a mob from damaging railway property. He was not on duty at the time. The Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Labour Court commissioner and the high court held that he was disentitled to compensation because under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it is payable only when a workman dies “in course of employment”. Allowing an appeal by the wife, the Supreme Court held that since he was courageous enough to come out of his quarters even after duty hours to try and safeguard railway property, it could not be said that his death was not “in course of employment” (Shyama Devi vs the Union of India).
SOLON
