Top News Headlines 30th Dec 2021: Power Under 407 CrPC To Be Exercised Only In Cases Of Strong Pre-existing Bias- MP

Power Under 407 CrPC To Be Exercised Only In Cases Of Strong Pre-existing Bias- MP

• In the case of Manoj Parmar vs Union of India, the Hon’ble HC of Madhya Pradesh was dealing with an application of the accused, Manoj Parmar in which he had requested that the case pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore be transferred to the Court of Special Judge, CBI.
• In the instant case, the applicant alleged that the case pending before the ADJ, Sehore contains allegations similar to the one pending against him in the Court of Special Judge, CBI. He said that both the cases relate to him dishonestly and fraudulently taking the loan, and therefore it would be convenient for him if both the cases were heard in front of the same court, which is the CBI Court.
• Most importantly, he alleged that Satyanarayan Vishwakarma, who was a witness in the CBI case was the accused in the police case heard before the ADJ, Sehore. This would lead to bias against him and would rob him of the opportunity of a fair trial.
• Taking note of the list of witnesses to be examined before both the courts,, the Hon’ble HC noted that the list was not the same. The witnesses in the police case before the Court of ADJ, Sehore were from that place only.
• The Court also took note of the fact that the trial before the Court of ADJ was at an advanced stage.
• Taking note of the above facts, the Court was of the view that the power granted to the Court under Section 407 of CrPC was one to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations where there is a ‘bias’ or a ‘likelihood of bias’. This would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
• The Court also observed that it is a well settled fact that the litigant cannot choose a Bench of his choice.
• Thus, the Court did not find any valid ground to exercise its powers under section 407 of CrPC and therefore rejected the plea of the applicant, Manoj Parmar.

Man Arrested For Dropping Used Condoms In Donation Boxes- Keep Reading To Know More

• The Mangaluru Police have finally arrested a man that they have been on the lookout for for the past one year. He has been accused of dropping used condoms in donation boxes of various temples in Mangaluru.
• The accused, who has been identified as Devdas Desai, is a native of Unkal in Hubbali, but has been living in Mangaluru for the past 20 years. An auto-driver by profession, he is an ardent follower of christianity. However, due to his old age, he has resorted to picking up plastic and selling it to scrap shops to earn a living.
• Desai has, in his interrogation, stated that he hasn’t just targeted Hindu temples, claiming that he has dropped off similar used condoms in various Gurudwaras and Mosques in the area. The Police have also found writings against various other religions from his house.
• According to the police, 18 religious places were violated as such by the accused over the past year.
• When asked for reasons, the accused Desai said that he was doing the Lord's work and that Jesus was the only true God. He was dropping used condoms because impure gifts should be given to impure places. He further shamelessly said that he had no remorse.
• The accused’s acts would be covered under sections 295 and 295A of the IPC. Section 295 states that whoever defiles or destroys any place of worship with the intention of insulting the feelings of any particular class will be punished with imprisonment of either description which shall extend upto 2 years, or fine, or with both. On the other hand, Section 295A states that whoever with malicious and deliberate intent of outraging the religious feelings of any class, does any act, or makes any sign or visible representation, insults the religious feelings of that class would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term extendable upto three years, or with fine, or with both.
• This isn’t the first incident of defiling a religious place in the country. Back in April, two men named Raheem and Taufiq admitted to urinating and putting condoms in the Hundi of the temple of Lord Koragajja (avatar of Lord Shiva). This incident had also occurred in Mangaluru.
• This sort of religious extremism serves no good to anyone. Besides creating hostilities between different religious groups, it also maligns the image of our great country in the international community. Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam are the ideals of our ancient culture, and they are the need of the hour when religious extremism is at an all time high.

Turmeric, If Polished, Not Exempted From GST As It Is Not An Agricultural Produce: GST-AAR

• The Maharashtra Authority of advance Ruling has held that 5% GST is applicable on dried and polished turmeric. They held that turmeric is not an agricultural produce but is a ‘spice’.
• In the instant case, the applicant Nitin Bapusheb Patil has been a registered person under the GST Act, 2017 as a commission agent. He rendered his services to the farmers in relation to the supply of Turmeric (whole and not powdered) to the traders in APMC, Sangli.
• If the farmer and buyer mutually agree to the sale and purchase, the applicant would get a 3% commission for facilitating the sale. This commission is fixed as per the APMC regulations.
• The applicant in the instant case seeks a ruling on the issue whether the turmeric, which is not in powdered form but is in whole, would be covered under the definition of Agricultural Produce. He also seeks clarification on whether the 3% commission that he is given would be covered under GST.
• The notification dated 28-06-2021 defined agricultural produce to be any produce which is obtained by cultivating plants and rearing all life forms for food, fibre, fuel, etc. It is to be noted that horses do not come under the category of life forms. The notification further stated that no further processing should be done on such produce.
• The coram of Rajiv Maggo and T.R.Ramnani has held that dried and polished turmeric would not be covered under the definition of Agricultural Produce and hence, would not be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax. The rate of GST payable would be 5%.
• As regards the services of the applicant, it was held that the services rendered by him would also not be exempted and would be taxable under GST.
• The AAR also observed that the applicant, Nitin Patil would be required to be registered under the relevant provisions of the GST Act, 2017 for the services that he renders.