Tag: #recentjudgemet

-Report by Sakshi Tanwar

This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 166/2015, dated 16.11.2015, recorded at P.S. Crime Branch under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The initial application filed on behalf of the current applicant was rejected as withdrawn by a coordinate bench of this Court on February 31, 2018, with an instruction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.

FACTS

P.S. Crime Branch obtained classified information on alleged anti-national acts supported by Pakistan-based intelligence operatives. The operation in question was handled by an Indian. Information about the deployment of the Indian Army and the Border Security Force (“BSF”) in Jammu and Kashmir and passed it on to people across the border, threatening national security. The mobile phone numbers involved were intercepted, and the names of two people engaged – Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed surfaced. Kafaitullah Khan lived in Rajouri and Abdul Rasheed served in the BSF. It was found that Abdul Rasheed gave classified material to Kafaitullah Khan in exchange for money, who then gave it to Pakistan intelligence operatives.  

Kafaitullah Khan came across his close friend Mohammad Saber, i.e., the present applicant, who was a primary school teacher. In confidence, Kafaitullah Khan told the applicant about his meeting with the aforesaid Pakistan intelligence officer and the task assigned to him. He agreed to the task by taking some money. Kafaitullah Khan got in touch with an ex-serviceman, Munawar, through the present applicant. Farid Khan had passed on some documents to Munawar, which were then passed on to Faizal-ur-Rehman through the present applicant. Mobile phones were recovered from Kafaitullah Khan, Abdul Rasheed, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Khan and the present applicant. The Call Detail Records showed that the accused were in touch. Bank account details of all the accused persons were obtained from the concerned banksand it was found that Rs. 10,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant. 

The found documents pertaining to the Indian Army were forwarded to the appropriate authorities for examination. It was discovered that the aforementioned documents were classified in nature. Following the completion of the investigation, the first chargesheet in the current case against Abdul Rasheed Khan, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Ahmed, Kafaitullah Khan, and the present application was filed on February 23, 2016.

APPEALANT’S SIDE

The applicant, according to learned counsel acting on his behalf, was detained on December 5, 2015, and has been in judicial detention for more than 7 years. It was also claimed that he had been imprisoned for more than half the maximum time permitted for the crimes he was accused of committing. As a result, the petitioner is eligible to be released on bail under Section 436A of the CrPC. It was further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the allegations against him are solely on the basis of the disclosure of Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed. Learned counsel for the application testified that no incriminating material had been obtained from the applicant’s possession or from his domicile. Furthermore, no incriminating evidence was discovered on his laptop or camera. It was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to connect the Rs. 10,000/- transferred to the bank account of the applicant with any of the allegations made against him. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record which shows that the data alleged to be transmitted was passed on by the applicant.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount, one of which should be a relative of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to some conditions.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LaNDh3

-Report by Karan Gautum

Heard Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner is an educational institution run by a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and Ram Yagya Chaudhary executed a registered gift deed of his agricultural land in favour of the petitioner’s institution on 20.9.2016. However, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) reported that the gift deed was undervalued and the valuation was not shown on the market value. The dispute was referred to the Collector and the petitioner filed an objection. Stamp Case No.27/281/D-2016171404706 (State vs. Ram Yagya Tara Devi Chaudhary Inter College) was registered under Section 47A of the Stamp Act. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.5.2017 and filed a Writ Petition No.3447 of 2018, granting interim protection to the effect that further recovery in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain stayed and the revision shall be decided by respondent no.1 within a period of 6 months.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

This Court passed an interim order granting four weeks’ time to file the counter affidavit and two weeks to file the rejoinder affidavit. It also directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the deficient stamp amount, which in the instant case is to the tune of Rs. 4,21,500/- and the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the amount fixed under the head of penalty, within one month from today. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the amount directed to be deposited. The petitioner submitted that the demand of deficient stamp duty by the respondent authorities is illegal, as according to the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the value of the property as provided under Article 33 of Schedule I B of the Stamp Act will be applicable and the deficiency determined by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 based on market value is illegal. Counsel also submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTION 

B.N. Pathak, learned standing counsel, submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and that the rate for the agricultural plot cannot be fixed for payment of stamp duty. He also cited Sections 27 & 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to demonstrate that the power has been rightly exercised by the respondents against the petitioner. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Court has held that on the ground of the future potential of the property, the stamp duty cannot be imposed in respect of the property in dispute. The true test for determination by the Collector is the market value of the property on the date of the instrument, as every instrument is required to be stamped before or at the time of execution.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) no. 66621 of 2010, Sumit Gupta vs State of U.P. and others, states that there is a difference in the language used in Article 33 of the Schedule I-B of the Act and Section 47-A of the Act when levying stamp duty on a gift-deed. The legislature has deliberately used the word “value of the property” in Article 33 while subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has refrained from using the term “market value”. This means that when the market value is not at all relevant, the provisions of the Act do not come into play which necessitates the determination of market value. This court has followed the earlier judgment of AWC 1087, Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha Vs State of U.P. and Shiva Dutt Mishra Vs. Commissioner Gorakhpur Division and 2 Others on the point of imposition of stamp duty on the gift deed in respect to the agricultural plot. Paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of these judgments.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LpwS3J

CITATION: WRIT – C No. – 43196/2018