Skip to main content

Forgers Deserve to Get their Fingers Chopped, Says Judge

Persons forging property documents deserve the punishment of chopping off the fingers as in Iran, Madras High Court has observed. “But there is no law to that effect in our country,” regretted Justice SVaidynathan on Thursday.

The judge said Iran has unveiled its latest innovation in criminal punishment - a machine that cuts off fingers of thieves. It is being used for chopping off the fingers of culprits by a court of Shiraz. For having committed forgery of property document in the case on hand, this court is of the view that such a punishment should be awarded to the petitioner.

The judge, however, imposed a huge cost of `1 lakh on PM Elavarasan of Kottur, the petitioner, who prayed for a direction to the Sub-Registrar in Virugambakkam to release the sale deed presented by him on April 17, 2013 upon assigning a registration number.

After collecting the cost amount, the Registry should issue four cheques for `25,000 each in favour of the Cancer Institute in Adyar, Govt. Higher Secondary School for the Blind in Karaiyan Chavadi, Vidya Sagar of Kotturpuram and YRG Centre for AIDS Research for Education in the City. This exercise should be completed within a month.

Conceding the contentions of addvocate S Thanka Sivan for VVV Nachiappan, whose land in Kumaran Colony in Vadapalani has been forged by the petitioner, the judge wondered at the audacity of the petitioner in approaching the HC with a writ petition when the Registering Authority had withheld the document. The action of the petitioner is highly deprecated  and hence, warranted imposition of heavy costs.

Persons like the petitioner who indulged in such illegal activities should be dealt with iron hands, the judge added and hoped that the court  concerned, would award the maximum sentence in the event of the charges being proved against the petitioner.

The judge also observed that it is really shocking as to how these kind of forged documents are being created in the office of the Sub-Registrars. No doubt, it is only with the help of the officials of the Sub-Registrar’s office, the judge said. If the laws are rigid and deterrent, the criminals cannot dare to indulge in such illegal activities,’’ the judge said.

 Article referred: http://m.newindianexpress.com/tamil-nadu/335484?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=forgers-deserve-to-get-their-fingers-chopped-says-judge

 Comment: With all due respect to his lordship, we have only one comment to add. "Chop off his fingers !!!"  - Really????

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more