October 2, 2022

The Lawmatics Bulletin: 23

12-April-2021 to 19-April-2021

LIABILITY MUST BE ATTRACTED EVEN IF TRANSMITTED MATERIAL IS NOT OBSCENE UNDER SECTION 67 OF IT ACT: DELHI HC

X v. UOI

The Delhi High Court in its recent judgement held that photographs taken from social media accounts of an individual and uploaded on pornographic websites without the consent of such individual amounts to an offence even if the photographs are not itself obscene under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000. The court has held that it is evident that such publication would likely result in ostracisation and stigmatisation of the person concerned in society and therefore immediate and efficacious remedy is required in such cases that is, the court must pass the order of restrain or injunction immediately as soon as it comes to the notice of courts.


REASON SHOULD BE STATED BY MAGISTRATE BEFORE CONVERTING SUMMARY TRIAL TO SUMMONS TRIAL: SC

Re: Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act

The constitutional Bench of hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from summary trial to summons trial in exercise of their power under the second proviso attached to Section 143 of the Act. The court said that, it is clear that the conversion by the Trial Courts of complaints under Section 138 from summary trial to summons trial is being done mechanically without reasons being recorded, which results into contributing to the delay in disposal of the cases.
NOTE:The second proviso to Section 143 of Negotiable instruments Act empowers the Magistrate to convert the summary trial to summons trial, if he is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is undesirable to try the case summarily, after recording reasons.


PRIVATE VEHICLE IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 43 OF NDPS ACT: SC

Boota Singh Vs State Of Haryana

The Division bench of the hon’ble Supreme Court recently observed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “Public place” as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court held that, the evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to the accused The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS Act”
PUBLIC PLACE: The explanation attached to section 43 of NDPS act provides for “public place” which gincludes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.
NOTE: Section 15C of Kerala Abkari Act,1967 provides for prohibition on consumption of vehicle at public place and it also include private vehicles which are parked in any public place.


THE STATE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FACILITATE ACCESS OF EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS: SC

Farzana Batool Vs Union of India

The hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that, although Right to pursue to the higher education is not a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead the state has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education at all levels. The court said, “This obligation of the State assumes far greater importance for students whose background (by virtue of such characteristics as caste, class, gender, religion, disability and geographical region) imposes formidable obstacles on their path to accessing quality education.”