Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 29 - September 4.,2022

Nominal Index:

ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 340

MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

Judgment/Orders.

1. Bhang Not Covered Under NDPS Act, Prosecution Must Show It Is Prepared From Charas/ Ganja: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6611 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 340

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a man accused of possessing Bhang, holding that Bhang is not covered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. Transfer Orders Cannot Be Passed In Absence Of Vacancy, Must Show Place Of New Posting: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to ensure that if transfers are made after the period of general transfers, no request for transfers should be entertained or orders made unless there is a vacant place.

3. No Notice Ought To Be Issued To The Subject Prior To Issuance Of Look Out Circular: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12185 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

The Karnataka High Court has held that no notice ought to be issued to the subject of the Look out circular prior to its issuance. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna however added, "Right to travel being curtailed against the subject of the LOC, he would at least become entitled to a copy of the LOC, not at any time prior to his being stopped from travelling abroad, but only at the time when he is stopped from travelling out the shores of this nation."

4. Motor Vehicle Act | Insurer Liable To Compensate Spare Driver If Only One Claim Made: Karnataka High Court

Case title: THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others

Case No: M.F.A.No.23205/2011 c/w M.F.A.No.23206/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the insurer is very much liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, if there is only one claim under the policy.

5. Representation Of Peoples Act | S.127A Prescribes Non-Cognizable Offence, Magistrate's Permission Mandatory For Police Investigation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC.

6. Minimum Punishment Prescribed U/S 27(d) Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act Can Be Reduced If Accused Enters Plea Bargain: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.775 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order imposing a sentence less than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, noting that the accused had entered into a plea bargain under Section 265-B of CrPC and had accepted his guilt.

7. Article 350 Constitution | Citizens' Grievance Before Jurisdictional Authorities Can't Be Kept Unconsidered Indefinitely. Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16625 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates that where a citizen raises a grievance before jurisdictional authorities, it cannot be kept unconsidered indefinitely.

8. Issuance Of Multiple Notices By Investigating Authority Does Not Falter Preliminary Inquiry: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15624 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

The Karnataka High Court has said that issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.

Other reports

1: Twitter Habitually Non-Compliant, Can't Decide What Content Will Threaten National Security: Centre Opposes Plea Against Blocking Orders

Case Title: TWITTER, INC v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WP 13710/2022

The Central government has opposed the petition filed by US-based microblogging platform Twitter questioning several 'take down' orders issued by the Ministry of Electronic & IT, to pull down content including accounts regarding farmers' protest, alleged mismanagement of Covid-19.

2: BREAKING| Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Ganesh Chaturthi Celebrations At Idgah Ground At Hubbali-Dharwad

Case no: WP 103290 of 2022.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday night refused to stay the permission granted by the Dharwad Municipal Commissioner to certain Hindu organizations for performing Ganesh Chaturthi rituals at Idgah ground at Hubbali-Dharwad.