Warrant issued against woman absconding on bail

A non bailable warrant has been issued by the local court against a woman facing prosecution in several cases of allegedly providing fake passports and visas, as she absconded after securing interim bail from the Delhi High Court

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vidya Prakash issued non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Honey Sharma, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, along with other members of her family for running a racket of providing fake passports and visas in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab.

Sharma was granted interim bail by the high court and was to surrender on March 1 before the jail authorities but she failed to do so and also did not appear before the CMM on two consecutive hearings.

“It is informed to the court that said accused (Honey Sharma) was granted interim bail by the High Court of Delhi (in another related matter) but her interim bail was not extended and she was directed to surrender herself before the jail authority vide order dated March 1, 2013 passed by the high court but she has failed to surrender and is absconding,” according to the CMM.

“In view of the aforesaid, issue NBW against accused Honey Sharma through DCP Special Cell and notice to her surety…,” he also added.

Sharma and her husband Vipin Sharma along with Sachin Sharma, Harshad Alam, Bhupender and Aman Alam are accused of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and the Passport Act for running a racket of providing fake passports and visas.

Barring Honey Sharma, all were arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police after an FIR was lodged in 2009.

Honey Sharma was declared a proclaimed offender and could be arrested only in January 2012.

In April last year, she had accused a warden of Tihar jail of torturing her with the help of HIV positive women inmates for extorting money from her.

The jail authorities had denied the allegations.

Honey Sharma and co-accused are alleged to be involved in over 30 cases of cheating and forgery and were also slapped with charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for running an organised crime syndicate.

They were, however, discharged from MCOCA by a sessions court.

No wrongdoing in 2G case, government to court

There has been no wrongdoing in the allocation of second generation (2G) spectrum, the government told the Supreme Court Thursday.

Attorney General G. Vahanvati told judges G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly that everything in the allocation of 2G licences was in conformity with the then national telecom policy.

Vahanvati said that in the grant of the licences, revenue was not a consideration and the government’s goal was to increase teledensity.

He said this in reply to a petition by Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy seeking the cancellation of 2G licences on grounds that these were granted arbitrarily and in breach of the first-cum-first served policy.

Swamy also said that telecom companies had failed to comply with their contractual responsibility.

Investigation into the corruption allegations linked to the spectrum allocation led to the resignation and later arrest of A. Raja, who was the communications minister

No rape by cops, girls tell Chhattisgarh court

Two days after accusing four policemen of gang raping them in a police station complex in Chhattisgarhs Raigarh district, the two victims Friday retracted their earlier statements in a court Saturday.

The girls told a local court at Gharghora town Friday that they were not raped by policemen.

The girls, one of them a minor, belong to Dharmjaigarh yown where residents were outraged late Thursday by the alleged rape of the girls by four policemen Nov 9.

The girls escorted by dozens of angry local residents registered a first information report (FIR) at Dharmjaigarh police station against the identified four policemen. The town is located in Raigarh district, about 280 km from Raipur.

During the court proceedings Friday, the two refused to identify the accused policemen when Raigarh police chief Rahul Sharma produced all policemen who were on duty Nov 9, before the girls for identification.

The girls have also refused to undergo medical tests.

The rape charges had on Thursday sparked severe criticism against police force and Home Minister Nankiram Kanwar had reacted to the incident an “extremely shocking” and promised “total justice to the victims”.

Now residents of Dharmjaigarh town were reported to be embarrassed after girls refused to substantiate their charges that they made in an FIR that they went to see off two relatives at the bus stop on the night of Nov 9 when a police patrol team picked the men up and took them to the Dharmjaigarh police station.

The girls reached the police station to find out why their relatives were nabbed but were forcibly taken to a house in the complex by two policemen who raped them. They then called two other colleagues over the phone, who too raped them, they alleged.

No land deal final until registered, rules apex court

The Supreme Court has held that no land transaction would attain finality unless it was duly registered and no sale deed of land would get a back-dated finality by its registration subsequently.

The court said that a transaction in land would only be complete on the date of the registration of the sale deed.

In its ‘inescapable conclusion’, a bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan said the sale executed between the seller and the buyer in respect of a land ‘could not be termed as a complete sale until the document got registered’. The judgment, delivered Friday, was only made available Thursday.

The apex court set aside the verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld the trial court verdict that a sale deed becomes effective on the date of its execution as its registration relates to the date of its execution. Thus the trial court held that a suit challenging the transaction in land would not invite the doctrine of lis pendens (Latin for suit pending) if it is filed between the execution of sale deed and its registration.

Dismissing the conclusions of the trial court, Justice B.S. Chauhan, speaking for the bench, said that if in the course of the execution of a sale deed and its registration, a suit challenging that transaction has been instituted, then it would attract the doctrine of lis pendens.

The apex court said that section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that registration would relate back to the date of execution of the sale deed but it would not grant finality to the sale deed retrospectively (from the date of execution of sale deed).

The case was of Mam Chand (now dead) of Asraka Majra village in Haryana’s Rewari district, who mortgaged his 22 kanals (approximately 1.09 hectares) of land to one Har Narain (now dead) for Rs.7,000 in 1970.

Subsequently he sold eight kanals (approximately 0.39 hectares) to Har Narain for Rs.7,500. Mam Chand got Rs.200 as earnest money and the rest was adjusted against the mortgaged land.

However, Mam Chand then sold his land to five people (all respondents in the case) Aug 2, 1971 and this sale deed was registered on Sep 3, 1971. Har Narain filed a suit Aug 10, 1971 seeking to restrain Mam Chand from alienating him from the said lands. This suit was dismissed Sep 4, 1971.

Besides other grounds for dismissing the suit, the trial court had held that the sale deed deemed to have come into force Aug 2 as its registration Sep 3 relates back to the date of the execution of sale.

Thus the trial court held that since the sale deed became effective Aug 2 and the suit by Har Narain was filed on Aug 10, the transaction did not attract the doctrine of lis pendens.

Setting aside the verdict of the high court and the lower courts, the apex court restored the eight kanals of land bought by Har Narain to his legal heirs. The legal heirs of Mam Chand were directed to pay the amount he received for the sale of these lands plus 10 percent interest.

The court said that legal heirs of Mam Chand would be entitled to the rest of the land in the wake of quashing of the sale of the land to five respondents.

No amicable solution or delaying Ayodhya verdict: Court

A week before it is scheduled to announce its verdict in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid row, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court Friday turned down a plea for directing an out-of-court amicable settlement of the dispute, noting several such attempts in the past had gone in vain.

The court also slapped costs of Rs.2 lakh on the petitioner, low-profile retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, though the amount was later reduced to Rs.50,000. Tripathi now plans to approach the Supreme Court with his plea.

The three-judge special bench of Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma also upheld its decision to deliver its judgment Sep 24.

“Postponement of the judgment could lead to more problems than the judgment itself,” said Justice Khan, the seniormost judge on the special bench said during the arguments on the plea.

The 16-page written order released by the three-judge bench termed Tripathi’s petition as “mischievious”.

“Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the applicant, without any lawful excuse or reason, has filed this application, we hold this attempt mischievous and therefore, he deserves to be imposed exemplary costs of Rs.50,000,” the bench ruled.

The bench also cited the series of attempts made both by the high court as well as by the Supreme Court in the past to bring about an amicable settlement.

“We made efforts by requesting learned counsels for the parties to find out the possibility of a compromise, if any. Some of the parties very bluntly told us that in the nature of the rights asserted by them, the scope for compromise is absolutely nil. None was ready to part away even a single inch of land and said that it is for the court to decide but they cannot make any surrender whatsoever,” it said.

The 60-year-old legal battle has as many as 40 parties – 32 seeking the title to the disputed site as Lord Rama’s birthplace and eight in support of the Babri Mosque.

The judgement also frowned on Tripathi’s contention that the verdict could lead to law and order problems.

“We are really surprised to hear the wonderful argument by which he tries to frighten a court of law alleging apprehension of violence if a judgment is delivered and thereby asking the court not to decide a case. This is something that the people of India least expect from a court of law and that too, the highest court in a province,” it added.

During the arguments, Justice Agrawal pointed out that efforts for conciliation and an amicable out-of-court settlement were made by at least three prime ministers, two central laws and also a presidential reference to the Supreme Court, but all in vain.

The court also castigated Tripathi for waking up at the last moment, well after it had reserved its verdict and resolved to pronounce it Sep 24. “Where were you all these years while the case was being heard,” asked Justice Khan.

However, he added: “Even today if majority of the parties agree to get the matter resolved through concilliation, we will gladly welcome the move”.

Even when the judge threw open the offer to the parties present in the court, there was only one voice in its favour. This was the ‘Nirmohi Akhara’, one of the key parties in the legal battle.

Justice Sharma, who had late Monday evening entertained Tripathi’s application despite the absence of the other two judges on the bench, remained silent throughout the hearing.

Tripathi, 73, was upbeat despite the verdict.

“The high court order has not disheartened me at all and I am definitely going to file an appeal before the Supreme Court,”as told by Tripathi  “I am not ready to give up as my effort was aimed only at serving the larger objective of insuring peace and communal harmony in the country. Since there is very little time left for the final judgment, I have to rush to Delhi as soon as possible,” he added.

Asked for his response to the order that not only questioned his motives, but also charged him with making an “attempt to divert, deviate and obstruct” the Ayodhya case, Tripathi shot back: “Well the high court has all the right to draw its own conclusions, but tell me, what would a 73-year-old man achieve by doing all that the court has accused me of attempting?”

Asserting that the mosque was built after the descecration of an ancient Hindu temple on the spot, violent Hindu mobs pulled the Babri Masjid down on Dec 6, 1992, triggering one of India’s worst post-partition communal clashes that left over 2,000 dead.

No petition from Afzal Guru in apex court

The Supreme court has not received any petition from Afzal Guru, who has been sentenced to death over the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, court sources said today.

The sources said the Supreme court registry had only got a letter from him in February 2010 pleading for an expeditious execution of his death sentence.

The court registry communicated to Afzal Guru that there was a set procedure to approach the top court from jail. He was told he should file a proper petition and route it through the jail superintendent.

Since then Afzal Guru has not sent any communication to the Supreme court, they said. The 40-year-old was convicted for being a key plotter of the 2001 attack that killed 13 people in the high-security Parliament.

Guru, a medicine and surgical instrument dealer in Jammu and Kashmir, was sent to the death row in 2002. The Supreme court upheld the sentence a year later. The sentence was scheduled to be carried out 20 October, 2006 but his execution was stayed after his wife sought clemency from the president.