Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 9 to January 15, 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup

January 9 - January 15, 2023

Nominal Index:

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 1

Case Title: Charno Ram vs. Union of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 2

Case Title: Rohit Chauhan Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 3

Case Title: Deep Raj @Neetu Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 4

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Non Gazzetted Employees Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 5

Judgements/Orders:

S.138 NI Act | Complainant's Consent Not Necessary For Compounding Case When He Is Duly Compensated: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 1

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that it can compound a case registered under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, even in absence of consent of the complainant, where the complainant is duly compensated.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Thakur observed that the provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act coupled with inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C sufficiently empower the High Court to compound the case even in the absence of consent of complainant where complainant is duly compensated.

HP High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Sweeper Who Was Made To Dispose Of Collected Urine For 1 Month

Case Title: Charno Ram vs. Union of India and others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 2

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the state authorities to provide 2 Lakh as compensation to a sweeper who was assigned the job of disposing of collected urine in the incomplete toilets in a Government Polytechnic.

Observing that the state officials had not only violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner, who hails from the Scheduled Caste category, but also the legal rights available to him under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act 2013, the bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya ordered that action/proceedings be initiated against the official(s)/ person(s) guilty of violating the provisions of 2013 act.

Custodial Interrogation Can’t Be Used To Extract Confession: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Rohit Chauhan Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 3

While granting pre-arrest bail to an accused person, the Himachal Pradesh High Court said that custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract confession.

"I am of the considered view that no case for custodial interrogation of petitioner is made out. The tool of custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract confession. Such interrogation is permissible where the Investigating Agency is without any means to extract the facts. As noticed above, in the instant case the bank transactions can easily be ascertained through documentary evidence." the court said.

Rigours Of S.37 NDPS Act Cannot Be Invoked In Perpetuity To Dilute Right Of Expeditious Trial: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Deep Raj @Neetu Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 4

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the stringent provisions concerning bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 cannot be invoked in perpetuity to dilute the right of the accused to an expeditious trial.

Justice Vaidya observed that the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of ND&PS Act in perpetuity.

[Article 229] State Can't Object To CJ's Recommendations On HC Staff Service Conditions Unless "Very Good Reasons" Exist: HP High Court Censures Govt

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Non Gazzetted Employees Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 5

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the power of Chief Justice under Article 229(2) is paramount in nature and once the Chief Justice takes a progressive step to ameliorate the service conditions of the Officers and staff working under him, the State Government cannot raise objections unless there were very good reasons.

Differentiating the nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered by the staff of the State Secretariat and the High Court are concerned, there is a vast difference.

"Unlike, the State Secretariat, the staff of the High Court have to strive hard to accomplish the given task....The duty hours of the staff of the High Court normally and invariably get stretched and extended to odd hours and they are more often than not required to work till late in the night," the court recorded.