Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

IMPORTANT ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Family Courts Expected To Bring About Settlement, Endeavour Can't Be To Simply Dispose Of Cases At Cost Of Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement between the parties if possible, adding that the endeavour of the Court cannot simply be to dispose of the matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice.

A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside an order passed by a Family Court which had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Family Court had dismissed the said application after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, closing the right to the appellant to lead evidence.

2. Public Company Employees May Be Subject To Disciplinary Proceedings By Authorities Other Than Appointing Authority: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39

The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.

It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.

The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.

3. Limitation Period For Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences After Expiry Of 30 Days From Issuance Of Notice Invoking Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has held that the Limitation-period of 3 years for seeking Appointment of Arbitrator commences from the date of expiry of 30 days period, reckoned from date of issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.

Holding thus, it has allowed the Petitioner, Bharat Sachar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to proceed with Arbitration against the Respondent, WIPRO Limited.

4. Street Vendors, Hawkers Can't Fix Any Place Or Erect Permanent/ Temporary Structures: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions on North Delhi Municipal Corporation not to disturb or create obstacles in the business activities of the petitioners, a total of 20 traders, on the alternate tehbzaari sites allotted to them vide order dated December 29, 2021.

5. Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Against Unnecessary Blockade Of Roads For Alleged Political Protests

Case Title: Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking necessary action against frequent blockade of roads in the national capital, in the name of protests.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the concerned Respondents to look into the grievance raised by the Petitioner and decide his representation in according with the law, rules, regulations and government policies, as early as possible.

Moved by lawyer Ankur Bhasin, the petition, while citing various recent events, stated that the city has become a "symbolic protest site" for various pressure groups causing great inconvenience to the common masses by hampering their daily routine.

6. Filing Affidavits Of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43

The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets.

Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts directing the Directors of the Judgement-Debtor Company ('Petitioner') to file affidavits of personal assets.

" Just because the petitioners are directors of the judgment debtor company, they cannot be directed to disclose their personal assets."

7. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Owner Of 'Cars 24' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: Global Car Group Ltd. & Anr. V. Mohit Goyal & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Global Car Group Ltd., owner of the brand Cars 24, against alleged infringement of its trademarks by the Defendants.

Finding a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff, Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Global Car under Order 39 Rules 1, and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court further directed the Defendants are directed to remove/ delete the social media accounts and listings on third-party e-commerce websites maintained under the infringing marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs'.

8. Can't Examine Sufficiency Of Evidence While Deciding Plea For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar Jindad and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court has held that sufficiency of evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs is required to be considered during trial and not while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Holding thus, Justice Prateek Jalan upheld the order of the Civil Judge at Karkardooma Court, refusing to look into the documents produced by plaintiff to establish his claim of title over a disputed land and dismissing the Defendant's application for rejection of plaint.

The Bench observed,

" It is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant."

9. Civil Services| DoPT Entitled To Seek Info From Credible Sources Before Concluding If Candidate Correctly Claimed EWS Reservation: Delhi HC

Case Title: AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is entitled to seek information from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate for civil services has correctly claimed reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a petition filed by one Aashima Goyal challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the decision of DoPT whereby her candidature for Civil Services Examination, 2019 was cancelled.

According to the petitioner, she became aware of her candidature being cancelled only when she received information in December 2020 in response to her RTI application.

10. Probationer's Performance Assessment Is The Function Of Employer,Judicial Review Not Warranted Unless It Is Arbitrary and Capricious: Delhi High Court

Case Title: J. S. Arora v. DVC & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The assessment of work and performance of a probationer is the function of the employer and the Court should only invoke its power of Judicial Review where such action is tainted by arbitrariness and capriciousness and the courts should be wary of substituting their opinion on such questions, Delhi High Court noted.

Justice Yashwant Varma, in a case pertaining to alleged unlawful termination of services of a probationer as Director (HRD) of Damodar Valley Corporation, further noted that even the Union government can only interfere in respect of matters which are not provided for in the Regulations framed by the Corporation and where the regulations clearly make provisions for the stipulation of work and assessment of such work and do not envisage any role to be played by Union government with regard to the same, only the corporation itself has the mandate to govern on such issues.

11. "Merely Trivializes The Offence Of Sexual Harassment": Delhi High Court Expresses Anguish Over False Invocation Of S. 354A, 506 IPC

Case Title: DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court has expressed its anguish at how Sections 354A and 506 of IPC were falsely invoked in an FIR at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual, observing that the aforesaid merely trivializes the offence of sexual harassment.

Justice Subramonium Prasad also added that such false invocation of the said provisions casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.

The Court made the said observations while quashing an FIR registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) against an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, petitioner in the matter.

12. CPC Order VIII Rule 1| Belated Filing Of Documents By Defendant Not Permissible Without Leave Of Court: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Sourabh Jinal & Ors., CS (Comm) 247/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that "provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC make it clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".

The observation was made by Justice Suresh K Kait, while hearing an application filed by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, seeking to bring on record certain additional documents.

It may be noted that Order VIII Rule 1(1) provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence.

13. Delhi High Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Actress Juhi Chawla In Case Against 5G Rollout, Reduces Cost To Rs. 2 Lakhs

Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50

The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by the Single Judge against Bollywood and environmentalist Juhi Chawla while dismissing her civil suit against 5G Roll.

Modifying the impugned order, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also reduced the cost imposed vide the impugned order from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs, observing that the same may be retained as some of the applications filed in the civil suit were indeed completely meritless.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.

14. No Bar On Pursuing Criminal Proceedings After Arbitration Has Commenced: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 51

Observing that commencement of arbitration does not bar a party from pursuing criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to investigate the complaint lodged by a Non-Banking Finance Company against one of its defaulting borrowers.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,

" there is no bar of pursuing criminal proceedings once arbitration has commenced."

In the instant case, the Bench noted that the facts on the face of it prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It thus added,

"Section 154 Cr.P.C provides for the registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences, which the police is mandated by law to register in writing and thereafter investigate into it."

15. Plaintiff Quoting Wrong Statutory Provision In Application Doesn't Bar Court From Considering It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court recently decided an application that was filed under a wrong statutory provision, stating that quoting a wrong provision does not create a bar or stand in the way of Court considering the application.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait relied on Gotham Entertainment Group LLC & Ors. Vs. Diamond Comics Pvt. Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4009 and Nitish Arora vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (141) DLT 21, to observe,

"...under Section 151 of CPC, this Court has inherent power to consider an application wherein a wrong provision is mentioned. It cannot be an obstacle for granting the relief".

16. 'School Authorities Bypassed Statutory Procedure': Delhi HC Vindicates Rusticated Probationer In Cheating Case, Orders ₹15 Lakh Compensation

Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53

In a ruling that vindicates a terminated probationer battling civil and criminal proceedings by a private aided school for 26 years, the Delhi High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.

Justice Jyoti Singh upheld and partly modified the Order of Delhi School Tribunal, quashing the dismissal order of the School Authorities due to not adhering to the relevant statutory requirements.

The School had failed to conduct an inquiry before termination on allegation of serious Misconduct and did not seek prior permission of the DoE, which is mandatory under Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

The probationer was terminated for allegedly forged and fabricated school certificates and graduation degree.

17. Under Maintenance Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC Court May Not Usurp Jurisdiction Of Civil Courts: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.

"Thus, the litmus test for determining the marital status of the parties in maintenance proceedings is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and nothing more. It is also pertinent to note that the abovementioned decisions bring out the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are designed to reduce the vagaries of the neglected wife and children," the Court said.

18. Prosecution Must Prove 'Nature Of Weapon' Used During Robbery Was Deadly For Upholding Conviction U/S 397: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASIF v. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 55

The Delhi High Court has modified the conviction and sentence of a man from sec. 397 of Indian Penal Code to sec. 392 as the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon.

Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade.

"In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC," the Court said.

19. Accused Can't Use His Power Of Attorney Holder To File Petition U/S 482 To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 56

The Delhi High Court has held that the accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings.

Citing the mandatory requirement of personal appearance of the accused in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court noted that the presence of third parties in criminal cases would defeat the very purpose of the criminal justice system.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed a petition under Article 227, Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings through the Petitioner's Representative holding his Special Power of Attorney (S.P.A.).

20. S. 20 CPC| Company Presumed To Operate From Where Principal Office Is Located In Absence Of 'Exclusion Clause': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 57

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction of Courts, a company is presumed to carry its business from where its principal office is located.

In the present case, where the Defendant-company claimed to operate from Jaipur, Justice Yogesh Khanna further made it clear:

" the company has its principle office at Delhi; this Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely by mentioning on the invoices viz. the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur would not snatch away the jurisdiction of this Court as there was no exclusion clause in the invoices."

21. Service Recruitment| Appeal Against Medical Exam Report May Be Filed On Same Day, Review Board Not For Giving Time To Rectify Ineligibility: Delhi HC

Case Title: Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58

The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because the Petitioner was not granted 15 days' gap between his Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination for recruitment in the Police force, it cannot be said that there was any fault in the procedure adopted.

The Petitioner, a CAPF aspirant, had claimed that even though candidates are granted 15 days period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board, he was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted.

As a consequence, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Marital Rape Exception Based On Intelligible Differentia Of Marriage: Men Welfare Trust Argues Before Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court this week continued hearing a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.

Advocate J Sai Deepak representing Men Welfare Trust today concluded the rejoinder submissions opposing the criminalisation of marital rape before a bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar.

Deepak clarified the stand of Men Welfare Trust by arguing that the entity was not against the legal recognition of spousal sexual violence. He added that its focus has been on three aspects: one, regarding proper forum; two, whether existing law is inadequate and three, on gender neutrality in which the law is moving.

He submitted that the fact that the petitioners have challenged exception 2 of Section 375, Section 376B of IPC and Section198B of CrPC, shows that they were aware of the existence of specific and special treatment in the legislation, the basis of which is the existence of marriage.

Also Read: Men Welfare Trust Opposes Judicial Intervention To Criminalize Marital Rape

Also Read: Marital Rape - Forcible Sex By Husband Can't Be Labelled Rape; At Worst Sexual Abuse; Wife Has Other Remedies: NGO Tells Delhi High Court

Also Read: Section 498A IPC Not A Remedy Against Marital Rape: Amicus Curiae Rebecca John To Delhi High Court

2. Delhi High Court Directs CBI To Recall Lookout Circular Against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana In Corruption Case

The Delhi High Court this week directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to recall the lookout circular issued against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana in relation to a corruption case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi and other persons.

Justice Mukta Gupta however added that Sana will continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

"The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petitioner," the Court said.

3. Right To Be Forgotten: Delhi High Court Asks Indian Kanoon To Consider Blocking Judgment Concerning Matrimonial Dispute

The Delhi High Court has asked Indian Kanoon to consider blocking access of a trial court judgment concerning a matrimonial dispute in a plea invoking the right to be forgotten.

Justice V Kameswar Rao issued notice on the petition which had sought removal of the said judgment and posted the matter for further hearing on February 17 along with other similar matters involving the question of right to be forgotten.

4. Delhi Riots| Investigation Pending In 384 Out Of 758 FIRs: Police Tells High Court

The Delhi Police has informed the High Court that out of the 758 FIRs registered in connection with North East Delhi riots cases, investigation is pending in a total of 384 cases.

The development came in an affidavit that was filed by the Delhi Police in a clutch of petitions filed by Ajay Gautam, regarding the violence due to Delhi riots and alleged hate speeches by political leaders.

The police has stated that chargesheets have been filed in 367 cases, cancellation report has been filed in 3 cases and the a total of 4 cases have been quashed by the High Court.

5. "Delhi Riots & Farmers Protests Disturbed Public Order, Matters Of National Importance": Centre Defends LG Appointed Prosecutors

Defending the Delhi Lieutenant Governor's appointed Special Public Prosecutors to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots, Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the cases, being highly sensitive in nature, are matters of national importance.

In a common counter affidavit submitted by the Centre and Delhi LG, it has further been submitted that both Delhi riots and farmers agitation cases led to disturbance of public order which prompted a need for efficient, fair and just prosecution of the FIRs in order to retain the faith in the country's law and order machinery.

"Merely because the incidents took place within the geographical jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi, would not suffice to treat those matters as falling under direct control of the Petitioner," the affidavit reads.

6. First Conviction Not Final, Presumption Of Innocence Continues Till Last Court Of Appeal: Arguments For Ansal Brothers In Delhi HC, Order Reserved

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.

Justice Subramonium Prasad on Thursday heard Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Arvind Nigam for the duo.

7. Delhi High Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction To Hear Plea Against UAPA Sanction: Ex-Mumbai Cop Sachin Waze Claims

Dismissed Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze on Monday claimed before the Delhi High Court that it has the territorial jurisdiction to hear his challenge to the sanction granted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in order to prosecute him in connection with Antilia bomb scare case.

The case pertains to the recovery of 20 gelatine sticks (explosives) and a threat note in a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's house in Mumbai on February 25 last year and the subsequent murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

8. Distinction Between Doctors, Paramedic Staff For Granting COVID Ex Gratia Amount By Delhi Govt Not Justified: High Court

The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the distinction drawn by the Delhi Government between doctors and paramedic staff working in either Government or Private Hospitals requisitioned by the State with other nursing homes which may not have been requisitioned on account of their capacity, is not justified.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also observed that only because some nursing homes may not have been requisitioned due to their bed capacity, does not ignore the fact that the doctors and paramedic staff working at such nursing homes were also exposing themselves to the risk of contracting covid and suffering death on that account.

9. All District DCPs Sensitized For Sharing Data Of Cases Pertaining To Sexual Offences With DSLSA: Delhi Police To High Court

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that all the Districts' DCPs have been sensitized and necessary Standing Orders have been issued so that the entire data with respect to the cases pertaining to sexual offences can be shared with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).

The development came after Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri earlier sought to streamline the process of supplying FIRs pertaining to commission of sexual offences DSLSA for the purposes of granting interim compensation to the victims.

10. Examine Possibility Of Creating A Ballistic Database: High Court Tells Delhi Police

The Delhi High Court has told the Delhi Police to examine the possibility of creating a ballistic database, storing reports of all firearms for which licenses are issued or endorsed to public, which may be accessed in case of an investigation.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked the Committee appointed by the Police Commissioner to also consult the technical experts of CFSL with regards to the same.

"The Committee appointed by the Police Commissioner referred to above, may also examine the possibility of creation of a Ballistic Database, where ballistic reports of all firearms, in respect of which licences are issued or which are endorsed on the licences issued to public, can be stored so that said database can be accessed in case of an investigation," the Court ordered.