Telangana HC modifies sentences in unlawful assembly case

HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court modified the sentences of several individuals convicted in an unlawful assembly case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a ‘common object’ among the accused. The panel, comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal, was dealing with a batch of appeals filed in 2018, challenging the trial court’s conviction of all accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the brutal killing of a forest officer by a village mob that was agitating for surplus land allotment. According to the prosecution, forest officials arrived at the location where villagers had encroached forest land but were attacked, resulting in severe injuries to several officers. One officer was axed to death. After reviewing the evidence, the panel noted that while the accused had gathered to protest, there was no prior concert or premeditated plan to commit murder. The panel observed that the attack on the deceased was carried out solely by accused no. 1 and there was no conclusive evidence that the other appellants shared a common intention or object to kill the officer. The remaining accused were convicted based on recoveries at their instance, but no witnesses attributed specific overt acts to them apart from accused nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the conviction of accused no. 1 under section 302 IPC was upheld for attacking the deceased with an axe. The sentence of accused no. 2 was modified to Section 326 IPC, reducing his incarceration period to five years. The remaining accused were convicted under section 324 IPC and directed to undergo three years of imprisonment. With these modifications, the court disposed of the appeals.

HC wants RTI exemption GO placed before state assembly

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the state government to place its order, which exempts intelligence and security organisations from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act before the legislature and subsequently make it available publicly. The exemption is on the grounds that revealing preventive detention details could compromise security. The judge took on file a writ petition filed by one Vijay Gopal, challenging the government’s refusal to disclose preventive detention-related information under the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that the special branch (SB) of Hyderabad police, under the direction of the joint commissioner of police (SB), refused to provide copies of GOs and preventive detention orders, citing the impugned GO. The petitioner contended that this refusal violated the law and claimed that the state government had failed to comply with a previous court ruling that directed all departments to upload government orders on their official websites for public access. The state police commissionerate contended that the special branch was exempt from RTI disclosures. The government argued that revealing preventive detention details could compromise security. The judge acknowledged that section 24 of the RTI Act allows exemptions for intelligence and security agencies but found merit in the petitioner’s argument that the impugned GO had not been placed before the legislature, as required under section 24(5). While the judge upheld the exemption granted under section 24(4) of the RTI Act, he directed the state government to place the impugned GO before the legislature and subsequently make it publicly accessible.

Notice must before reclassifying consumer’s electricity category: HC

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court held that the general terms and conditions of supply (GTCS) require electricity providers to issue an initial notice before reclassifying a consumer’s electricity category. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the assistant engineer (operation), TSSPDCL, and others, challenging an order in favour of Veerabhadra Swamy Apparels. The dispute revolved around a back-billing notice demanding approximately `9.54 lakh issued due to the alleged misclassification of the company's electricity category. The petitioners contended that the company was initially granted an electricity connection under category III (industrial) but was later found that it was operating as a laundry, which falls under category II (commercial). Consequently, a reclassification was made, and a back-billing demand was raised for the period from September 8, 2017, to November 24, 2020. However, the respondents argued that this reclassification was carried out without following the procedure laid out in clause 3.4.1 of the GTCS, which mandates issuing a prior notice and allowing the consumer to file objections. The consumer grievances redressal forum (CGRF) initially ruled in favour of TSSPDCL, upholding the back-billing claim. However, upon appeal, the Telangana State electricity regulatory commission set aside CGRF’s decision, citing procedural lapses. The appellate authority observed that no prior notice had been served before the reclassification, thereby violating the consumer’s right to be heard. While dismissing the writ plea, Justice Nanda reiterated that clause 3.4.1 of GTCS requires electricity providers to issue an initial notice before reclassifying a consumer’s electricity category. The judge emphasised that back-billing can be imposed only after following due process, which was not adhered to in this case. Concluding that the back-billing demand was unlawful due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, the judge upheld the appellate authority’s decision.

AMR agro food partner gets court’s protection

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the police of the economic wing CCS not to take any coercive steps against one of the partners of AMR Agro Foods India. A complaint was filed by Care Health Insurance company, alleging that the accused persons had fraudulently solicited two group insurance policies to policy holders named AMR Agro Foods India pvt. ltd. and Inlet Solutions having fraudulently added patients with pre-existing critical illness as employees of these policyholders. However, they were not employees of these corporate policy holders and were fraudulently shown as employees only to take the benefit of insurance and commit fraud and cheat the company. There are no allegations against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is only a sleeping partner and has no role in the day to day affairs of the company and the liability cannot be passed on to him. He also complained that though his name was not mentioned in the complaint, the police were compelling him to appear before them without giving any notice and creating a reasonable apprehension of his imminent harassment. The judge directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in connection with the FIR.