Top News Headlines 14th Dec 2021: Depositors Insurance : Relief To Those Aggrieved By Moratorium Restrictions

Depositors Insurance : Relief To Those Aggrieved By Moratorium Restrictions

• Speaking at the” Depositor’s First: Guaranteed Time-Bound Deposit Insurance Payment upto Rs. 5 lakh Here”( yes that’s the name of the program) PM Narendra Modi said that the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2021 passed by the ruling government will “instill confidence in account holders” on the banking system as the depositor’s money will remain safe even in the case of a future bank failure.
• Earlier , out of the deposited amount , only Rs. 50,000 was insured which was later increased to Rs. 1,00,000. But keeping the security of the middle and lower strata of the society in mind , the present BJP-led government has increased the limit of the insurance amount to Rs. 5,00,000.
• Further , the time-limit of refund has been fixed at 90 days which was absent earlier.
• The first batch of interim payments has been released by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation recently against the claims received from depositors of 16 Cooperative Banks on which restrictions were imposed by the RBI. The next batch will be released on 31 December, 2021.

A couple of interesting MCQs for our Aspirants:

1. What is the name of the new bill passed by the parliament safeguarding Depositor’s Interests?
2. The limit of insurance refund amount has been increased from 1 lakh to ________?
3. What is the newly stipulated time limit to be followed by RBI to release the money to the aggrieved depositors under the scheme?

Tell us the answers in the comments below!
(That is how you will remember them in the examination hall)

Section 50 NDPS Act Not to Be Complied With In Case Of Vehicle Search

• The Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari while upholding the conviction of the accused in Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan on 11 December, 2021 observed that the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (search of the person of the accused) are required to be complied with only in the case of personal search and not in the case of search of a vehicle.
•  
• In the instant case, the accused was apprehended while running away from 2 policemen when he felt that he could be stopped and searched. Suspecting probable concealment of contraband, the police chased him down and searched him. No drugs were found on his person but 900 grams of Smack was strapped to the bottom of his motorcycle’s seat. He was arrested in consequence.
• He was convicted by the trial court under sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.
• Mr. C.N.Srieekumar, the learned senior counsel representing the appellant had urged that the search and seizure was conducted by an unauthorised officer with the help of police witnesses. He further contended that the procedure contemplated by section 50 of NDPS Act has not been followed. The link of the vehicle with the commission of the offence has not been established.
• The Court held that the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding the non-compliance of section 50 NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which the compliance of the provisions of section 50 has to be followed mandatorily.
• The Court also referred to the judgement in Vijayasingh Chandhubha vs. State of Gujarat (2011)1 SCC 609 in which the Hon’ble Court held that section 50 of NDPS Act has to be complied with in case of a personal search and not in the case of a vehicular search.
• As regards the absence of any independent witnesses, the Court observed that this question has already been dealt with by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2020)2 SCC 563 where it held that merely because the independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion cannot be drawn that the accused was falsely implicated.

Let’s see if you can answer this question correctly-

1. The section which pertains to search under NDPS Act is __________ .

Delhi High Court Criticizes Drug Addiction Among Youth
(We would love to know the thoughts that our young audience has in this regard)

• The Delhi High Court while dismissing the bail application of a man accused of supplying drugs to peddlars for distribution to customers on 6 December, 2021 in the case of Ram Bharose vs. State has observed that “the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are resulting in addiction among the public, particularly students and adolescents”.
• While discussing the effects of drugs on society, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that drug trafficking is “resulting in drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes. The menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in recent years which has a deadly impact on the society as a whole”.
• In April, a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and M.R.Shah in Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (6 April, 2021), while considering the plea of minimum punishment to be awarded to the accused, had observed-

“It should be borne in mind that …. persons dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable, it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society, they are a hazard to the society … Therefore while awarding sentence in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is also required to be taken into consideration. While striking a balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances, public interest, impact on society as a whole will always tilt in favour of a higher punishment”

Let”s see if you can answer the following question relating to NDPS Act-

1. When did the NDPS Act come into force ?

“Allotment Of Public Properties on the Basis of Discretionary Quota has to be Done Away With” - SC

• In the recent judgement of State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohan Ray LL 2021 SC the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the time has come to do away with the allotment of properties on the basis of discretionary quota.
• On 11th December, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the allotment must be fair, transparent and non-arbitrary.
• In the present case, allegations against certain public servants occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneshwar Development Authority and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Odisha, were that they had distributed prime plots in the Commercial Complex District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneshwar. They were accused of committing an offence under section 120B of the IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• Allowing the petition under section 482 of CrPC, the Hon’ble High Court had quashed their FIR.
• In appeal, the Apex Court observed that the allegations are against use of power with malafide intentions and allotment of plots to family members at a throwaway price, causing loss to the BDA and the public exchequer.
• The Court observed that “ allotment of public properties must be transparent and has to be fair and non arbitrary. In such matters public interest only has to be the prime guiding consideration in order to get the best price so that it may serve the public purpose and public interest so as to avoid loss to the authority and to the public exchequer.
• The Court also observed that the discretion of the democratic government in selecting the recipient for it’s largeness must be exercised “objectively, rationally, intelligibly, fairly, and in a non arbitrary manner”. The Hon’ble Court further observed that even in the presence of guidelines which are issued to be followed for the allotment of the plots under the discretionary quota , it is found that many a times they are hardly followed or are manipulated. Therefore “the best thing to do is to do away with such discretionary quota and allotments of public properties/plots must be through public auction by and large”.

Let’s see if you can answer the following question-

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code talks about________.