Bullet in a Necklace: Man Acquitted After 14 Years
Zainab Khan, counsel for the petitioner, argued that in the absence of the conscious possession of live ammunition, which cannot be used for any purpose, the provision of the Arms Act would not be applicable
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court gave relief to a person who was facing criminal proceedings under the Arms Act since 2011 for wearing a birthday gift of a neck chain with a bullet. The police had invoked Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the High Court made it clear that mere physical custody of a firearm or ammunition, without the requisite mental element, did not attract the penal provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act. Further, the judge stated that the essential requirement to constitute an offence under the Arms Act, was the existence of mens rea, i.e., knowledge of such possession or control over the firearm or ammunition.
Justice Sridevi was dealing with a petition filed by Karan Sajnani, native of Kolkata, who came to attend a marriage in Hyderabad in 2011. While he was returning to Kolkata on Febuary 13 2011, he was stopped at the checkpoint of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Shamshabad after he was found carrying the live ammunition. The trial court did not agree to discharge him from the case. He approached the High Court in 2015.
Zainab Khan, counsel for the petitioner, argued that in the absence of the conscious possession of live ammunition, which cannot be used for any purpose, the provision of the Arms Act would not be applicable. She argued that conscious possession was a necessary ingredient to establish criminal liability and mere custody without mens rea would not amount to an offence under the Act.
Telangana HC Warns of Heavy Fines for Frivolous Petitions
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday cautioned petitioners that a heavy fine will be imposed if frivolous petitions were filed by suppressing the facts to get favourable orders. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh said that the court would not spare anyone filing frivolous petitions and attempting to waste the court's time.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy was dealing with a petition seeking to cancel environmental clearance granted to the building in the name of a deceased person. The petitioner along with others made a development agreement with the realtors and construction company in 2019.
When disputes arose, the petitioner approached a single judge bench to cancel the building permission. As the single judge did not agree to his request, the petitioner, suppressing the same, filed another petition seeking cancellation of environmental clearance to the 14-floor building in Hafeezpet, on the grounds that three out of five GPA holders had been deceased.
Additional advocate-general Imran Khan argued the building was ready for occupation and the approvals belonged to 2019 and that there was a private dispute between the petitioner and the builders.
Taking it as a serious note, the bench appeared set to impose heavy costs. However, on repeated requests by counsel, the court allowed to withdrew him the petition. At the same time the court cautioned the petitioner.
HC Upholds Disability Pension for War Veteran
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal’s 2023 decision granting disability pension to Colonel Dr George Wilson, a retired Army Medical Corps officer and veteran of the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
Col. Wilson, who served for decades in the Indian Army, was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease in 1996 while on duty at a tertiary care military hospital. Despite being certified by two medical boards — in 2001 and again in 2017 — that the illness was aggravated by military service, his claim for disability pension was denied by the authorities on procedural grounds.
The Armed Forces Tribunal, after examining the evidence and medical assessments, had directed the Centre to release disability pension for life to the officer, along with benefits and interest at 8 per cent on the arrears.
The Union Government had challenged this order before the High Court, questioning the tribunal’s interpretation and the findings of the medical boards. A division bench comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Tirumala Devi upheld the tribunal’s ruling, observing that the medical boards’ opinions could not be lightly disregarded and that service-related ailments must be approached from a perspective of welfare and justice for veterans.
