North East High Courts Weekly Roundup [February 20 - February 26, 2023]

Nominal Index:

Jagat Chetri v. The Union of India & 5 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 29

Deep Jyoti Nath Vs State Of Assam 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 30

Babul Ahmed v. The Union of India & 5 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 31

Babul Ahmed v. The Union of India & 5 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 32

Gauhati High Court Imposes Cost On Electoral Registration Officer For Referring Retired Army Officer To Foreigners Tribunal To Determine Citizenship

Case Title: Jagat Chetri v. The Union of India & 5 Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 29

The Gauhati High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of 52 Dibrugarh Legislative Assembly, for referring to Foreigners Tribunal, a retired army personnel who has rendered a service of 38 years, for adjudication as to whether he is a citizen of India.

The court observed that the order of reference itself provides that the ERO had got the matter verified by on the spot local verification on the question and it was found that the date of birth of Jagat Bahadur Chetri is 1937 and the place of birth is Dibrugarh.

[Cheating Case] Non-Compliance Of Section 41A CrPC Would Entitle Accused To Be Released On Bail: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Deep Jyoti Nath Vs State Of Assam

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 30

The Gauhati High Court held that if the police does not comply with the provisions of Section 41A CrPC in appropriate cases, the person arrested would be entitled to be released on bail.

Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, while disposing off the application of the petitioner, ordered as follows “After perusal of the case diary, I find that simply on an allegation made by the complainant, the petitioner was thrown behind the bars. Therefore, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 41A of the CrPC, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.”

[PIT-NDPS Act] Detaining Authority Takes Over Two Months To Decide Detenue’s Representation, Gauhati High Court Orders Immediate Release

Case Title: Babul Ahmed v. The Union of India & 5 Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 31

The Gauhati High Court set aside a detention order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT-NDPS Act) on the ground that the detaining authority took more than two and half months to dispose of the representation of the detenu.

The division bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan observed:

“In the instant case, we have noticed that even if we take out the period for which the records were sent to the Advisory Board, the detaining authority took more than 2 ½ months to dispose of the representation and the only explanation given is that a report was called from the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta which took more than one month. Even if the report took more than one month, still a balance of 1 ½ months remained unexplained for the delay.”

Gauhati High Court Reduces Sentence Of Man Convicted For Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter After Modification In Trial Court Verdict

Case Title: KS v. The State of Assam

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 32

The Gauhati High Court modified the judgement and sentence of trial court in a POCSO case in which a father was convicted for the offence of penetrative sexual assault on his 13-year-old daughter, on the ground that the offence was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

The court said there was no cross-examination either of the victim girl or the doctor.

“There is no doubt that the hymen of the victim girl was found intact. So, complete penetration can easily be ruled out. It is true that in order to constitute penetrative sexual intercourse, slightest penetration is sufficient. But in the case in hand, we have before us the evidence of the doctor who quoted the victim girl as saying to her that the appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina. If this piece of evidence is accepted, then it can be held that there was no penetrative sexual assault,” it added.

Manipur High Court

Nominal Index:

Khongbantabam Hitler Singh Vs The Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station 2023 LiveLaw (Man) 4

Manipur High Court Grant Bail To Man Accused Of Murdering Two Women, Unborn Child; Says Prolonged Detention Of Under-Trials Violation Of Article

Case Title: Khongbantabam Hitler Singh Vs The Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Man) 4

The Manipur High Court granted bail to a person alleged to have committed murder of two women and an unborn child in 2017.

"A humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the bail application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law," Acting Chief Justice M.V Muralidaran said in the order.

The court also observed that the important facet of criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception.

Nominal Index:

Smt Tripura Roy Vs State of Tripura 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 3

Smti. Rubia Bibi Vs Md. Mati Miah 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 4

Shri Gautam Das Vs State of Tripura 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 5

Tripura-TET 2021: High Court Refuses To Ascertain Correctness Of Answer Key, Says Lapses In Large Scale Exams Cannot Be Termed Deliberate

Case Title: Smt Tripura Roy Vs State of Tripura

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 3

The Tripura High Court recently reiterated that a Constitutional Court must exercise great restrain while entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers in an examination process. Large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one to warrant interference, it added.

Certified Copy Of Sale Deed Is Secondary Evidence U/S 63 Evidence Act, Does Not Prove Its Execution: Tripura High Court

Case Title: Smti. Rubia Bibi Vs Md. Mati Miah.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 4

The Tripura High Court has held that a certified copy of a sale deed is secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act which acknowledges/recognizes the existence, conditions and contents of a Sale deed, but not its execution.

In view of this factual matrix the court said that Clause (b) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act contemplates that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the existence, conditions or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative.

[Tripura Panchayat Act] Essential To Communicate Party Whip Prior To Election Process, Mere Reading Of Whip Not Sufficient: High Court

Case Title: Shri Gautam Das Vs State of Tripura.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tri) 5

Setting aside a declaration in terms if which the petitioners had earned disqualification and thereby ceased to be a member of the gram panchayat, the Tripura High Court recently observed that it is essential to communicate party whip prior to the commencement of the election process. Mere reading loudly of the whip does not come within the purview of the Tripura Panchayat Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it added.

"Mere reading loudly of the whip does not come within the purview of the said Act and Rules. Further, there is no evidence on record that any written intimation of the party whip was ever served upon any of the petitioners", the bench added.

Other Updates:

Justice T A Goud Appointed As Acting Chief Justice Of Tripura High Court

Justice T A Goud has been appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Tripura High Court with effect from February 23. Chief Justice Jaswant Singh, who was recently appointed as Chief Justice, retired on February 22.

Justice Goud is the senior-most puisne judge of Tripura High Court and earlier also has remained as Acting Chief Justice of the High Court.

Tripura High Court Directs State To Ensure Proper Transportation, Sheds For Cattle

The Tripura High Court recently allowed a PIL filed by Delhi-based NGO Gau Gyan Foundation to ensure welfare measure for cattle, including proper transportation.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice T. Amarnath Goud & Justice Arindam Lodh directed the State authorities to immediately take steps in this regard under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules 2017 and other notifications issued by the Centre, within a period of 3 months.