Top News Headlines 16th Mar 2022: A 33-Year Old Man Had Labour Pains

A 33-Year Old Man Had Labour Pains: Madhya Pradesh HC Orders Action Against Man Who Submitted False Documents Seeking Reinstatement In Service 

• In the case of Atul Kumar Tiwari vs. State of MP and ors. a very peculiar circumstance has come to light. The MP High Court has requested it’s Registrar General to file a complaint case against the petitioner for producing fake medical documents and making false statements before the Court. 
• The petitioner, in the instant case, had filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by his employers who rejected his representations to condone his absence on the grounds of serious illness for 3 years, and his request to be reinstated in service. 
• The petitioner alleged that he was a heart patient and that he was seeking medical treatment from various doctors, due to which he was away without leave for the duration of three years, when his services were terminated by his employer. 
• The Court observed that he had filed several documents related to his alleged  heart problems and that the certificates and the prescriptions that were submitted were without the signatures of the doctors. 
• It is pertinent to note that the Court drew it’s attention to one document in particular which reflected that the man had labour pains. The Court hilariously pointed out that a bare perusal of the documents has made the Court realise that the petitioner could be a person of immense interest to the medical community. An admission slip had been issued in the petitioner’s name by the Samuhik Swasthya Kendra dated 29/9/2011 where it is written “Amenorrhea 9 Month labour pain started since today morning at 5 am” 
• “Perhaps yet another case of immaculate conception with no available details of the messiah born therefrom”, the Court commented. 
• The Court observed that the petitioner, in all probability, visited the health-care centre and found the admission slip lying around discarded, without the name and details of the patient, and the petitioner filled in his own details without really knowing what the document was for. 
• The Hon’ble Court thus dismissed the petition and requested the Registrar General to file a complaint case against the petitioner for offences under section 468, 471 and the like provision of IPC and any other law under which the petitioner might be prosecuted. 

Mere Suspicion Cannot Be Allowed To Take The Place Of Proof; Prosecution Must Stand On Its Own: Allahabad HC

• The Allahabad HC has, in Sangram Yadav vs State of UP has held that it has been established through a plethora of decisions that the prosecution has to stand on it’s own two feet and cannot rely on a mere suspicion for the discharge of its burden. 
• In the instant case, an information was given by the Station House Officer, Nevdhia, District Jaunpur to the SP, Jaunpur that he had received a complaint through his mobile that the petitioner had, under the influence of alcohol, had misbehaved with a private cook Shamshad Ahmed. The petitioner was suspended in the consequence thereof. 
• An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levied against him and his removal was ordered under Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 
• Both appeal and revision which were filed by the petitioner were dismissed and hence he had filed the present writ petition. 
• The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire enquiry was a sham, and that no eye-witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer except the Station House Officer who had received the initial complaint on his phone. It was further alleged that only the medical report which was based upon the smell coming from the petitioner was relied upon. Neither blood nor blood tests were taken and thus, it could not be said with any certainty that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol or that any such misbehaviour actually took place. 
• The Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs State of Maharashtra (1971) SCC and Gurcharan Singh and anr. vs. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC wherein it was held that the prosecution must stand on its own two legs and should base its findings on the evidence led by it. It doesn't really matter whether the accused made out a plausible defence or not. 
• The petitioner also relied upon a judgement of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble SC in Union of India vs. HC Goel AIR 1964 SC wherein it was held that suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries, the likes of which is the subject of the present case. 
• The Hon’ble HC agreed with the arguments advanced by the petitioner and noted that the impugned order of suspension is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 
• Hence, the writ petition was allowed. 

Delay In Impleading Liquidator In A Civil Suit Doesn’t Amount To Its Abatement: Calcutta HC

• The Honourable High Court in a general Application [G.A. NO. 7 & 8 of 2021] filed in the case of Concast Steel & Power Limited V. Sarat Chatterjee & Co. & Ors. [Civil Suit NO. 77 of 2013] has held that delay in substituting liquidator’s name in the file of the suit would not in any way lead to an abatement of the said suit.
• The decision came in light of Order 22 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. It deals with situations where plaintiff’s insolvency bars suit. The Learned Judge was of the opinion that in case of a company that goes into liquidation, the suit shall not abate unless the liquidator declines to pursue the said suit and there should be a positive assertion to this effect.
• The defendant no.2 had filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of abatement by liquidator and to direct the special officer appointed by the court to restrain from carrying out the valuation and sale of the concerned goods in the main suit.
• The petitioner company had gone into liquidation by an order dated September 26, 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
• In the meeting held by the Special Officer, appointed as receiver by the court, the learned Advocate for company in liquidation, informed the Special Officer that his client had gone into liquidation and would not be able to share any costs for the suits and proceedings since they do not have the funds to do so. 
• The liquidator was present and took part in the said meeting and supported the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing for the company in liquidation.
• The Learned Counsel appearing for defendant no.2 emphasized on Order 22 Rule 8, and contended that the liquidator had declined or neglected to pursue the litigation. So, in light of the same, the suit had abated. It was further submitted that the sale of property in question should be stayed.
• The Learned Counsel for the liquidator, had submitted that the liquidator was always acting in the suit as would be evident from the appearance of the liquidator before the special officer appointed by this Court with regard to the sale of the property in question. 
• The Honourable Court relied on the Judgement of Khunni Lal v. Rameshwar & anr. wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that till an order had been obtained under Order 22, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure the proceedings cannot abate and must be deemed to continue.
• In the present case, there had been no order of the appropriate Court seeking an explanation from the liquidator or seeking a security for the costs incurred by the defendants. It was very clear that the liquidator had been acting in the suit and had taken all necessary steps. Under these circumstances, it would be erroneous to hold that the liquidator had declined to continue the suit.
• Hence, the general appeal in the Civil Suit seeking abatement of the suit was dismissed; an amendment of the plaint to bring the liquidator on record was allowed.