Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: June 27 - July 3, 2022

State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243

Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244

State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245

Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246

Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247

Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248

Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249

Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250

Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251

Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252

Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(Koli Patel) V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253

Chief Officer v/s Decd. Shree Solanki Kanubhai Danabhai through Legal Heirs Manjulaben w/o Kanubhai Solanki 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 254

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Bottles For Sample Collection Not Cleaned On Spot: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal For Alleged Offences Under Food Adulteration Act

Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Nimeshbhai Vitthalbhai Gandhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243

The High Court upheld the acquittal of a general store owner, who was booked under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after noticing that the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which the samples were collected, were not followed.

Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the Food Safety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not clean at the place of collecting the sample. He had also admitted that the covers of the bottles were not cleaned at the time. It said,

"This Court is of the view that though the complainant had explained all the formalities for collecting the samples but, so longer as the mandatory provisions are concerned for cleanliness of bottles and also cleanliness of the cover is concerned, same is not proved. On the contrary admitted that the same is not cleaned and therefore...this Court is of the opinion that (trial) Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent, which learned APP has failed to dislodge them."

Hindu Succession Act | Children Born From A Widow's First Marriage Can Inherit Property From Her Second Husband: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Heir Of Niruben Chimanbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 244

The High Court held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, when a widow dies intestate, her heirs including son and daughter out of wedlock or even from illicit relationships are entitled to the share in her property.

Justice AP Thaker further held that since the deceased widow in the instant case was one of the owners of the suit property, she had every right to give her undivided share to anyone vide her Will, particularly, when the Will had not been challenged by anyone before the High Court.

"It is worthwhile to refer to Hindu Succession Act, wherein under Section 15, a Hindu widow can inherit land from his second husband and even her children born out of first marriage can also inherit land from second husband."

S.19(2) Food Adulteration Act | Vendor Not Liable For Articles Purchased From Manufacturer With Written Warranty: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: State Of Gujarat - Thro' B.M Patel, Food Inspector V/S Naushadali Najarali Dhanani C/O Didar Traders & 1 Other(S)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 245

Referring Section 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, the High Court explained that a Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed any offence under the Act, if he has purchased the food article in question from a manufacturer, distributor or dealer with written warranty.

Keeping in view the provision, the High Court refused to interfere with the order of Judicial Magistrate, acquitting the vendor and owner of one Didar Traders.

Bank Can't Attach Customer's PPF Account For Settlement Of His Debt/ Liability: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Karta Of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah V/S Manager, Bank Of Baroda

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 246

The High Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that the amount of Public Provident Fund account shall not be liable to any attachment in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the account holder.

The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia was hearing the case of a Petitioner who had invested Hindu Undivided Family's money under Centre's Public Provident Fund Scheme with the Respondent-Bank of Baroda.

Increment Earned For Past Period Can't Be Denied Merely Because Employee Had Retired When It Became Payable: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Jayantibhai Bahecharbhai Patel V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 247

Finding itself in agreement with other High Courts across the country, the High Court held that the increment earned by an employee (government servant) for the past period of service cannot be denied merely because the said employee had retired when the increment became payable.

Justice Biren Vaishnav concurred with the Delhi High Court that when increment was earned for past period, its denial on the ground that on the date when the increment became payable the government servant was not holding the post as he had retired, was not valid.

Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 Does Not Contemplate Retention Of Newly Born Child's Custody By Surrogate Mother For Breastfeeding: Gujarat High Court

Case Title : Ena W/O Ashish Jain Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 248

The High Court has held that the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 does not envisage any provision that would require the custody of a new-born child to be retained by the surrogate mother for a particular period of time, for the purpose of breastfeeding.

A division bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held that the court must interpret the law as it stands and not on considerations of perceived morality. Thus, a new-born child could be handed over to the intended parents even without a court order, in lieu of the provisions of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 and the surrogacy agreement signed between the parties.

Competent Authority Can't Act Beyond Show Cause Notice: Gujarat High Court Cancels Forfeiture Of Land Allotted To Trust For Developing Playground

Case No.: Shree Hindvani Aanjna Patel Kelavni Mandal Versus State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 249

The High Court quashed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha which forfeited the allotment of land to a Public Trust for the purpose of developing a playground for school children. The High Court also directed the Respondent authority to decide the application for renewal of lease submitted by the Petitioner-Trust within 8 weeks.

The development ensued after the Court noted that the competent government authority had passed the order for forfeiture, beyond the show cause notice that was issued to the Petitioner.

S.138 NI Act | Gujarat High Court Sends Disputed Cheque To Handwriting Expert 'In Larger Interest Of Fair Trial'

Case Title: Shashikant Shamaldas Patel V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 250

In a petition involving alleged misuse of cheque, the Gujarat High Court has directed to send the disputed cheque to the Forensics Laboratory for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert to ensure the 'larger object of fair trial.'

The Petitioner, an accused, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had challenged the order of the trial court and Sessions Judge which rejected his plea for forensic examination of the cheque. The Petitioner made the prayer for sending the cheque for examination by the Handwriting Expert to determine the ageing and the writing on the cheque.

'Right To Speedy Justice Enshrined Under Article 21': Gujarat High Court Directs Expeditious Appointment Of Presiding Officer At DRT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Nipun Praveen Singhvi V/S Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 251

Affirming that the right to speedy justice is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing expeditious appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri allowed the petition filed by an Advocate enrolled in the Gujarat Bar Council and practising before various courts.

Absence Of Threat To Applicant No Ground To Refuse Firearm License Under Arms Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title.: Khanji Mohammad Saiyed Gulamrasool V/S Additional District Magistrate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 252

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reasons for refusal of a firearm license under the Arms Act should have a nexus and should be in context with the provisions of the Act and that the license cannot be revoked on irrelevant considerations.

The Bench of Justice AS Supehia further observed that the authority could not have revoked the Applicant's license merely because he had not received any threats or there was no incident of assault on him.

"The revocation of the license on the two grounds as mentioned hereinabove, is absolutely illegal and de hors the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act," it observed.

Witness Saw Accused Near Deceased, Blood Stained Weapon Recovered: Gujarat High Court Accepts Circumstantial Evidence To Affirm Murder Conviction

Case Title: Narubhai Amarsinh Makwana(Koli Patel) V/S State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 253

The High Court recently affirmed the conviction of a man under Section 302 IPC for Murder, while observing that the chain of circumstantial evidence was completed by the prosecution with cogent evidence, to bring home his guilt.

The Bench comprising Justices Vipul Pancholi and Rajendra Sareen heavily relied on the statement made by a prosecution witness who saw the accused near the cot of the deceased with a weapon as also the recovery of a blood stained Dharia from the accused.

Municipalities Empowered In Law To Retire Employees At Age Of 55 Yrs By Giving Three Months' Notice: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: chief officer v/s decd. Shree solanki kanubhai danabhai through legal heirs manjulaben w/o kanubhai solanki

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 254

The High Court has upheld the power of municipalities under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder to retire a municipal servant at any time on or after he attains the age of 55 years on giving him three months notice.

A bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observed,

"It was within the powers of the municipality in exercise of powers under Sec.271 to frame rules. Proviso to Rule 5 indicates that the action can be taken by a municipality against an employee where employee reaches the age of superannuation. This, of course, is subject to he being given three months notice and notice pay in lieu thereof."