Skip to main content

Act Of Recovering Dues On Behalf Of Bank Doesn’t Constitute An Act Of Abetment

The Bombay High Court in A.R. Satish vs State Of Maharastra has held that the act of recovering dues does not constitute an act of abetment.

Justice PD Naik set aside an order of Sessions Court, Raigad, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the accused and allowed an application for discharge filed by accused AR Satish, a bank employee in a case registered under Section 306 read with Section 511 of  the Indian Penal Code.

The court said-
“First of all, the material on record taken as it is, does not in any manner fulfill the requirement of abetment to the victim to commit the alleged act. Accused was acting at the instance of the bank for recovery of the dues of the bank. Admittedly, the victim had utilized the credit card of the Citi Bank. The bank was, thus, trying to recover an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Demanding the money from the complainant and assuming that he was threatened of dire consequences is in no manner can constitute an act of abetment. The Sessions Court has committed an error while rejecting the application by observing that there is grave suspicion against the accused that due to his alleged acts, the victim was forced to commit suicide.”

The court further noted-
“The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the case decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. Applying the ratio laid down in the said decision, it will have to be held that even if the act committed by the victim would have been accomplished, it would not have been an offence under Section 306 of IPC and the question of invoking Section 511 with Section 306 does not arise.”

Thus, the court allowed the application for discharge and set aside the Sessions Court order.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more