Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. while allowing this criminal petition directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and such Officer shall interrogate him and enlarge him on bail.

In this instant petition, the petitioner prays for anticipatory bail which has already been rejected by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 read with Section 34 IPC.

The complainant Vijayalaxmi was an agent in Jana Sneha Wealth Real Wealth Solutions Private Ltd. Different posts were held by the accused persons in the company. The nature of the work of the agents was such that they were instructed by the Directors to collect deposits from the general public by assuring them of a higher rate of interest and to get double the amount of deposits within five years and six months.

After demonetisation hit India, the accused persons started avoiding repayment to the customers. Since then, the complainant and other agents had collected nearly a crore from the customers. In December 2017, in order to make illegal gains with dishonest intentions, the accused persons locked the company. Hence, he committed fraudulent acts. After registering the case, the petitioner is being on a lookout by the Police.

Counsel for the petitioner, B. Anwar Basha submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the post and after that, the remaining accused persons established the Udayamabag Branch of the Company. The petitioner is in no way concerned with the activities of neither the accused persons nor any fraudulent transactions.

Counsel for the respondent-State, Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP submitted that all the accused persons had collected huge amounts of money from the innocent customers and later had failed to pay.

After analyzing the submissions of the parties, the Court observed that the petitioner had resigned and later on after five years the complaint was filed. Moreover, the time the petitioner left there were no allegations as to any fraudulent acts.

Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner an anticipatory bail as the grounds mentioned in the petition rightly suggests the actual apprehension of getting arrested. [Venugopal Vaidya v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2095, decided on 15-10-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): The present matter was taken up by Sudhir Bhargava (Information Commissioner), under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Appellant had sought information primarily on two points under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was:

  • Total number of currency notes of Rs 2000 printed daily from 09-11-2016 to 30-11-2016; and
  • Total Number of currency notes of Rs 500 printed daily from 09-11-2016 to 30-11-2016.

Further, a second appeal was filed on the grounds that the CPIO concerned denied information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

According to the respondent and the submissions made on his behalf, he had submitted response to the RTI application and explained that the nature of currency printing and allied activities call for utmost exclusivity and confidentiality. He further stated that the information cannot be shared with the public at large, lest this result in proliferation of counterfeit currency and economic chaos. Disclosure of the details as regards quantity manufactured during specific period of printing need not be made known to the general public so as to safeguard the integrity of currency and to guard against counterfeiters, such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

However, the Commission on perusal of the records and submissions made, noted that the information i.e. the total number of currency notes printed daily is not so sensitive so as to attract the exemption provisions under Section 8(1)(a), RTI Act as it relates to a past event and it cannot be presumed that its disclosure would lead to divulging the other non-disclosable information pertaining to the printing of currency notes.

Thus the CPIO was directed to furnish information as asked in point number 1 & 2 within 4 weeks from the receipt of order. [Harinder Dhingra v. CPIO, Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine CIC 1607, Order dated 05-12-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Responding to the Notice issued by the bench of J.S. Khehar, CJ and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J asking the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India to consider the option of allow the deposit of the old Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes to those who were not able to deposit the demonetised notes due to genuine and compelling reasons, the Centre and the RBI said that the last window for depositing the demonetised notes cannot be allowed as it will defeat the purpose of demonetisation and the efforts of eliminating black money. It was submitted that if the window is allowed, it could result into increase in benami transactions for producing and depositing old notes and it will make it difficult for departments to distinguish genuine cases from bogus ones.

Earlier this month, stating that genuine cases deserve a chance to deposit the old notes, the Court had explained that if a person was in jail during the period and was not able to deposit the notes without any fault of his then how can such person be barred.

Source: HT

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of J.S. Khehar, CJ and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J asked the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India to consider the option of allow the deposit of the old Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes to those who were not able to deposit the demonetised notes due to0 genuine and compelling reasons.

Citing an example of one such situation, the Court said that if a person was in jail during the period and was not able to deposit the notes without any fault of his then how can such person be barred.

The Court has granted 2 weeks’ time to the Centre and RBI to submit their response.

Source: PTI