Wednesday, October 31, 2018

SC order helps 6 poor families get ₹75L aid

A Supreme Court direction in a case of bonded labour has brought joy and hope to a group of 14 men, women and children from six families- each of their bank accounts swelled by ₹4.75 lakh. The SC registry deposited the cash into the accounts of the victims of the regressive practice of bonded labour. The cash was given by the convicts to secure their bail.

The SC had, on September 21, 2017, issued an order stating that the bail applications of the two convicts in the case, K Sivakumar and Munusamy Naidu, would be considered only if they handed over ₹75 lakh to the court registry on or before October 6 the same year.

The amount paid by them was deposited into the accounts of the victims on a pro rata basis. They were rescued on August 9, 2005 from a rice mill by revenue officials, who acted upon the information from IJM, an NGO.

The rescued bonded labours were informed about the cash deposits three days ago. “We were surprised when my uncle (Ramalingam) told us that ₹4.75 lakh was deposited in his account. I checked my account and found the account balance had increased to ₹4,77,061 lakh from ₹2,061,” said 28 yearold Chinnarasu, who was rescued along with his parents, Malliga and Mari.

Fake papers used for 68 HDFC Bank jobs

Bank Files Plaint Against Gurgaon Firm

One of India’s largest private lenders, HDFC Bank, has filed a police complaint against a Gurgaon-based consultancy firm that allegedly used forged documents to place 68 candidates in various positions, from assistant manager to branch manager, with the bank over two years.
The racket was exposed during a reference check of an employee, Geetanjali Bagga, by the bank in February. According to the bank’s police complaint, Bagga joined HDFC Bank as an assistant manager in October 2017.
During the reference check in February 2018, it came to light that she had been supported by Adeco Consultancy during the recruitment process and had submitted forged salary slips, experience certificates, and other documents. Bagga, during an internal investigation, revealed she had paid around Rs 60,000 to Amit Choudhary, who runs the agency. The bank subsequently opened an investigation into other candidates who had been placed through Adecco and found 68 employees had submitted forged documents in the past couple of years while joining HDFC Bank.
Out of the 68, around 51 were employees of the bank when the investigation was being conducted. One of them revealed the agency was run by Amit and his friend Satyendra Pal. Other than Adeco, some documents also used the names Lotus Consultancy and Aspire Consultancy.
Satyendra, who was the manager of HDFC Bank’s Noida Sector 135 branch, told the bank, according to the police complaint, that he had himself paid Rs 1.45 lakh to Adeco for his selection. After joining the bank, he used to train candidates for interviews with the bank and helped them in clearing online tests.
The bank approached police in September. After completing a preliminary investigation, an FIR was filed on Sunday at Sector 53 police station against Amit Choudhary alias Rohit Kumar, his wife, and HDFC Bank employees Komal Kushwaha and Vishal Pandey. They were booked under sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468, 471 and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

SC rejects challenge to Trai capping cost of TV channels, bouquets

In an important judgment that will benefit millions of television viewers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s power to regulate and cap the subscription price of channels and bouquets offered by broadcasters.

Star India Private Ltd and others had challenged Trai’s decision to fix a uniform maximum retail price for each TV channel at Rs 19 and stipulated that a channel, which was individually priced at more than Rs 19, could not be included in a collection of channels (bouquet) and could only be offered on an individual/a la carte/standalone basis. It had also stipulated that pay channels and free to air channels, as also HD and standard channels, could not be in the same bouquet.
Appearing for broadcasters, senior advocates A M Singhvi and P Chidambaram had argued that such regulation by Trai violated the copyright of broadcasters over the content on the channels. Rejecting the arguments, a bench of Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Navin Sinha, in a 123-page judgment, said Trai was protecting public interest of millions of viewers by capping the price of channels and broadcasters’ copyright was subservient to the public interest.
Justice Nariman said, “We do not find on a reading of the impugned regulation as well as the tariff order made that Trai has transgressed into copyright land.”

Turkey eases visa rules, Indians set to benefit

Turkey has relaxed its policy of not issuing visas on arrival (VoA) from October 28 to a number of nationalities, including Indians.
Indian passport holders who have valid visa or residence permit from Schengen, US, UK and Ireland will be eligible for Turkish e-visa, said Deniz Ersoz, culture and tourism counsellor at the Turkish Embassy.
Such Indians “can obtain their e-visa on the site https:// in three minutes for a fee of $44.5,” Ersoz said.
Indians who do not have valid visas or residence permits of these countries will, however, need to apply for sticker visa, with the single entry visa fee being Rs 3,940.
“Turkish e-visa is equivalent to the Turkish sticker visa issued at Turkish missions.
With e-visa one can enter from any border gate to Turkey and stay along the period that e-visa allows,” he added.
Asked if passengers transiting through airports in Turkey need a transit visa, he said: “If passengers are not leaving international transit area, they do not need any type of visa. It is advised to confirm the matter with airlines company if exiting transit area would be needed.”

No copyright on Patel community: Court

Rejects Patel Jeweller Vs Patel Jeweller Lawsuit

Patel is a community name and one cannot have a trademark right over this word. Similarly, jeweller is a person dealing in jewellery and one cannot stake copyright on this trade too.
A commercial court here observed this concluding that nobody can have a sole trademark right over ‘Patel Jewellers’ and cannot deter anybody from using this title for business.
The court recently turned down an application filed by a Mehsana-based jeweller Jitendra Patel demanding to restrain a famous Mumbai-based ‘Patel Jewellers’ from using the name for the business.

Jitendra Patel of Patel Jewellers sued Mumbai’s shopowners, in all 13 different shops, in March after they came to know the latter’s intent to open a showroom in Mehsana town in north Gujarat. He claimed that his family has been using trademark/tradename ‘Patel Jewellers’ since 1990 and got it registered also. He objected to Mumbai’s firm using the same title for business on the ground that his family was the first mover in the market and had earned considerable goodwill.

On the other hand, Mumbai’s firm also claimed to be the first mover in the market with the same title since 1993 in Maharashtra and Gujarat. The firm's lawyer claimed that they first issued a legal notice to Mehsana’s firm after they came to know about the illegal use of the tradename. In return, the Mehsana’s firm issued cross-notice and approached a civil court in Ahmedabad.
Both the firms showed their accounts since the inception of their firms to establish that their turnover has been in crores due to their goodwill. After a brief battle on factual aspects, the Mumbai firm’s advocate argued that the word ‘Patel Jewellers’ was not coined by the Mehsana’s jeweller, but Patel is a community and jeweller is a word used for a person engaged in the trade of jewellery. Hence, the Mehsana’s firm cannot claim exclusiveness over the word.
Judge M C Tyagi accepted this argument and said, “Patel is a well-known community in Gujarat. It is also not in dispute that the word jeweller means a person who carries on trade or business of jewellery. Therefore, the combination of both the words and as well as any single word is common and generic. None of the parties can claim exclusivity over the word Patel Jewellers.”

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

SC Issues Directions On Examination Of Witnesses In Criminal Trial

 ‘While deciding an Application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., a balance must  be struck  between the  rights of  the  accused, and  the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence’
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, listed out ‘practical guidelines’ to be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, ‘as far as possible’.
While setting aside a Kerala High court order, the bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that while deciding an Application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence.
The bench was considering an application against a Kerala High court order that had set aside a trial court order which had refused to defer cross examination of some witnesses. Allowing the accused’s petition, the High court had directed that the cross-examination of some witnesses be adjourned till after the examination­in­ chief of a particular witness.
On state’s appeal, the apex court bench observed that High Court gave no reasons for reversal of the Trial court Order refusing to defer cross examination and that the order was too cryptic.
The bench said that following factors must be considered, while deciding an Application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C
  • Possibility of undue influence on witness(es);
  • possibility of threats to witness(es);
  • possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy;
  • possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination in chief has been completed;
  • Occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Referring to some High court judgments, the bench said there cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. “The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether prejudice would be caused to the party seeking deferral, if the application is dismissed.”
Practical Guidelines
The Court has listed out ‘practical guidelines’ to be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible.
  • A detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges;
  • the case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination in chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted
  • The case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible
  • Testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled; v. the request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case calendar;
  • The grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses;
  • While granting a request for deferral of cross-examinations of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for;
  • The case calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary
  • In cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.

Even A Woman Of Easy Virtue Has A Right Of Refuse To Submit Herself To Sexual Intercourse To Anyone, SC Restores Conviction In Gangrape Case

‘The evidence of such a woman cannot be thrown overboard merely because she is a woman of easy virtue.’

Even assuming that the prosecutrix was of easy virtue, she has a right of refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone, said a Supreme Court bench while restoring conviction of four men accused in a gangrape case.


Before the trial court, the accused in their statement under Section 313 CrPC, had stated that the prosecutrix was of bad character and she was indulging in prostitution. Though they told the court that a complaint was lodged by them against her, nothing was produced before the court. The trial court convicted them taking into account the evidence of the prosecutrix.
Before the high court, the alleged complaints lodged against the prosecutrix were submitted during the arguments in the appeal filed by the accused.  Taking note of this additional evidence, the high court observed that the trial court erred in saying that the accused failed to prove the making of previous complaints against the prosecutrix. The accused were acquitted by the high court.
Any material produced before the appellate court to fill up the gaps by either side can’t be considered
The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the high court was not right in taking into consideration those complaints produced at the time of arguments in the appeal. It said: “The power conferred under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with great care and caution. In dealing with any appeal, the appellate court can refer to the additional evidence only if the same has been recorded as provided under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Any material produced before the appellate court to fill-up the gaps by either side cannot be considered by the appellate court; more so, to reverse the judgment of the trial court. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the High Court has taken into consideration the materials produced by the Bar, namely, complaints allegedly made against the prosecutrix and other women including the one allegedly given on 21.07.1997 just one week prior to the incident. The High Court was not right in taking into consideration those complaints produced at the time of arguments in the appeal.”
Evidence of such a woman cannot be thrown overboard
The bench approved the observations made by the trial court that even if the allegations of the accused that the prosecutrix is of immoral character are taken to be correct, the same does not give any right to the accused persons to commit rape on her against her consent.
Referring to judgment in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Madhurkar Narayan Mardikar, the bench said the evidence of such a woman cannot be thrown overboard merely because she is a woman of easy virtue. The bench further said that the high court erred in placing reliance upon the complaints allegedly made against the prosecutrix to doubt her version and to hold that a false case has been foisted against the accused.
The bench then restored the trial court judgment observing that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. Setting aside the high court verdict, the bench said: “The High Court erred in taking into consideration the materials produced before the appellate court viz., the alleged complaints made against the prosecutrix and other women alleging that they were engaged in prostitution. Even assuming that the prosecutrix was of easy virtue, she has a right of refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone.”
The bench affirmed the sentence of 10 years imposed on the accused by the trial court.
Full Judgment

Monday, October 29, 2018

Minor raped by father-son doc duo

A 17-year-old girl was allegedly sexually exploited several times by a 60-yearold doctor, his son, who is also a doctor, and a compounder in their clinic for over two years in Himmatnagar town of Sabarkantha district.
One more compounder of the same clinic has also been accused of molesting the minor, who did petty jobs there. The fatherson doctor duo was also accused of recordi-ng nude pictures and videos of the girl and threatening to upload them on social media.
Based on the minor’s complaint, Himmatnagar B Division police booked doctor Sikandar Rathod (60), his physician son Parvez Rathod
(35) and compounder Abdul Sattar Belim for rape under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) and IT Act. Another compounder Yasin Pathan, who also worked at ‘Skeen Car’ clinic run by the Rathods, was booked for molesting the minor girl.
According to the girl’s complaint registered on Sunday, the accused sexually exploited her time again for about two years since May 2016. They also recorded nude videos of the girl and threatened to upload it on social media if she disclosed about the incidents to anybody, police inspector AK Patel of B division police station in Himmatnagar said.
The girl in her complaint stated that her ordeal began in May 2016 and continued till April 2018 till she left the job.

eKYC can be used for govt schemes, UIDAI tells banks

The UIDAI has clarified to banks that Aadhaar eKYC can be used to authenticate beneficiaries of government subsidies and welfare schemes while for other customers physical Aadhaar card can be used for verification, a source said. The Aadhaar-issuing authority Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) wrote to the banks last week clarifying the instances and modes in which Aadhaar can be used, and a copy of the same was also sent to the Reserve Bank of India, a senior UIDAI official said.
The UIDAI wrote to banks after it received a legal opinion on the matter, in the wake of a recent Supreme Court verdict that restricted the use of Aadhaar by private entities but cleared it for welfare schemes.
The UIDAI informed the banks that they can use Aadhaar authentication for beneficiaries of government subsidies and welfare schemes, and listed various ‘options’ for the use of Aadhaar (such as Quick Response or QR code and offline Aadhaar) for other banking customers in the light of Supreme Court judgment in the Aadhaar case, said the official who did not wish to be named. Physical Aadhaar card can be used for verification in an offline mode if produced voluntarily, it clarified.
When contacted UIDAI CEO, said “There are viable and completely paperless and digital options available through the digitally signed electronic form of Aadhaar which allows identity to be verified online without pinging our server. And through such methods, the services can be seamlessly and digitally offered by banks for non-DBT customers”. He also confirmed that UIDAI’s views have been sent to banks but did not elaborate on details. PTI

Thursday, October 25, 2018

SC orders CVC inquiry into CBI director Alok Verma to be completed in two weeks

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Central Vigilance Commission inquiry into CBI director Alok Verma , who along with special director Rakesh Asthana was asked to go on leave after an internal fight between the two, to be completed in two weeks under the supervision of retired SC Judge A K Patnaik.

Calling the matter one of "national importance" that cannot brook any delay, CJI Ranjan Gogoi and justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said a retired SC judge would supervise the CVC probe "because of the importance of the case for the country and is a one time exception without casting aspersions on any constitutional or statutory authority."

The top court also asked M Nageshwar Rao, who was named interim CBI director by the central government, not to take any policy decision and do only routine job to keep the central agency functioning, essentially serving as an administrative head till the inquiry was completed.

The court ordered the Centre to give in a sealed cover the decisions taken till date by interim director Rao after being assigned the charge.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Verma challenging the central government's order to send him on leave.

Earlier on Friday, Asthana also moved the SC against the Centre's decision to send him on leave.

Following an internal fight between Verma and Asthana, the top two officers of the CBI, the government had appointed M Nageshwar Rao as interim chief of the CBI with "immediate effect" and placed the top two officers of the central agency on leave.

CA scandal: UK slaps Facebook with $645k fine

Facebook Inc was slapped with a symbolic £500,000 ($645,000) fine by the UK’s privacy regulator for “serious” violations of data protection rules that paved the way for the Cambridge Analytica (CA) scandal.
The fine is the highest possible for the Information Commissioner’s Office under old rules that predated this year’s European Union revamp of privacy penalties. The ICO said that between 2007 and 2014, “Facebook processed the personal information of users unfairly by allowing application developers access to their information without sufficiently clear and informed consent”. About the UK fine, Facebook said that they are reviewing the decision.

3 police men held in Bopal custodial death case

The special investigating team (SIT) probing the Bopal custodial death case on Thursday arrested three policemen deployed with the special operations group (SOG) and local crime branch (LCB), for the alleged killing of a 35-year-old man from Naroda, who was a suspect in a Rs 2.50 crore gold theft case.
The 35-year-old victim, Surubha Jhala, was a driver with a courier company. He was picked up by LCB and SOG personnel on October 14 and died the next day, states the FIR which books the cops for murder.
The SIT chief, deputy superintendent of police (DySP) K T Kamaria, said that all the three accused were nabbed after they gave statements to the probe team.
“We arrested SOG PSI N A Rayma, SOG head constable Mukeshsinh Daulatsinh and Sadiq Usman, a constable with LCB, in the custodial death case. Only these three persons were involved in the offence and we nabbed them after they made statements confessing the crime to us on Thursday,” said Kamaria.
About the five police personnel mentioned in the FIR, Kamaria said Jhala’s family members had misunderstood that there were five persons involved while only these three cops were involved in the crime. 

Suit For Mere Injunction Not Maintainable When Defendant Can Successfully Raise Cloud Over Plaintiff’s Title: SC

‘A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff.’
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a suit for bare injunction would not be maintainable when a defendant could successfully raise cloud over the title of the plaintiff.
The Jharkhand State Housing Board had approached the apex court assailing the high court and trial court judgment that had decreed a suit for permanent injunction filed by one Dildar Singh. The board contended that the suit is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title as the suit schedule property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the defendant. It was also contended that, without seeking right, title, possession and correction of entries in record of right, plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for injunction. The high court, while rejecting its appeal, had observed that as the plaintiff is in possession of the property, he can protect his possession against any interference and it is not necessary to prove his title to the property.
The bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar observed that the board by relying upon the land acquisition proceedings and the possession certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the plaintiff and in those circumstances plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration and the suit for injunction simplicitor could not have been entertained.
The bench said: “It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”
Full judgement 

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

HC: Slow learner can’t be declared ‘mentally retarded’

Merely because a student is a slow learner and not good in her studies, she cannot be declared as ‘mentally retarded’, the Bombay high court has ruled. The court came to the aid of a 32-year-old woman who had challenged her paternal aunt being appointed as the sole trustee of her late father’s will for his properties, that included a share in a flat in Churchgate. The aunt had claimed that the girl, the sole legal heir of her father’s properties, was mentally unstable citing an IQ test.
“In my view, even if a student is a slow learner or (her) school education is not satisfactory, such a person cannot be declared as mentally retarded on that ground,” said Justice Dhanuka. The court took on record the girl’s claims that she had been affected on account of her parents’ divorce. This led to her being academically weak and she even attended a special school as her intelligent quotient was low for some time.
The girl’s parents had married in 1985 and she was born a year later. The parents obtained a customary divorce in 2002, which the girl said affected her psychologically. Her father expired in 2011 and she lived with her aunt for a few months. Subsequently, her mother filed an application and was appointed as her guardian in 2012. The aunt filed a testamentary petition in the high court in 2012, seeking probate of the man’s 2009 will. She claimed that her niece was unfit to administer the properties and sought to be appointed as the main trustee. Last year, the girl filed a petition seeking a recall of the high court’s order dispensing with her consent and grant of probate in favour of her aunt.
Justice Ramesh Dhanuka recalled a 2014 order of the high court appointing the aunt as the trustee of the properties and executor of her brother’s will. The court further imposed Rs 1 lakh as legal costs that the aunt, who had stopped paying monthly maintenance for the girl’s expenses, will have to shell out to her niece.
The court came to the aid of a 32-year-old woman, whose aunt had claimed that the girl, the sole legal heir of her father’s properties, was mentally unstable citing an IQ test

Third child’s birth will disqualify panchayat poll candidate, says SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that birth of a third child would automatically disqualify a person from contesting panchayat polls and from holding the post of a member or sarpanch in a panchayat.

Scotching attempts by a tribal sarpanch in Odisha to step around the disqualification law by giving away one of his three children in adoption to comply with the two-child norm, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said the legislative intent in Panchayati Raj Act was to bar any person having three ‘live births’ in her/his family from contesting panchayat elections or holding posts in panchayats.
“The legislative intent is to restrict the number of births in a family and not on the basis of benefit available under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in regulating the number of children by giving the excess children in adoption,” the CJI-led bench said.
The petitioner, Minasingh Majhi, had challenged an Orissa high court decision to disqualify him from holding the sarpanch’s post in a panchayat in Nuapada district after the birth of his third child. Two children were born to him and his wife in 1995 and 1998. He was elected sarpanch in February 2002, but the birth of the third child in August 2002 led to his disqualification from the post.
His counsel Puneet Jain argued that he had given the firstborn in adoption in September 1999 and as Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that once a child is given in adoption, that child ceases to be a member of the original family, his client remained compliant with the two child norm to hold the post of sarpanch.
Jain argued that though Majhi was the biological father of three children, legally he had two children as the firstborn was given away in adoption to another family and, hence, he was compliant with the norm set by the Odisha Gram Panchayat Raj Act.
The top court bench said, “We do not know whether the law intended to make panchayat members and sarpanchs the role model for entire India by fastening the two-child norm on them. But the legislative intent appears clear that it wanted to put a cap on the number of children at two for those holding elected posts in panchayats.”
Jain argued that twins and triplets were born to persons and asked whether they should be disqualified from contesting panchayat elections or holding elected posts in the grassroots level democratic institution? The bench said the situation did not apply to the case in hand and clarified that birth of twins and triplets was a rare phenomenon and the court would take an appropriate decision when such a case was brought before it.

An SC bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said the legislative intent in Panchayati Raj Act was to bar any person having three ‘live births’ in his family from contesting panchayat elections or holding any post

Play grounds mandatory for new schools

Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (GSHSEB) has amended its rules for approving new secondary and higher secondary schools. According to the new rules, it is compulsory for schools to have a playground. School management, however, have protested the board’s decision, terming it illogical.
Representatives of Gujarat State School Management Association (GSSMA) wrote to the state education board, raising concerns over the issue. The letter states, “According to the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (SHSE) Act, there is no compulsion for the school to own a playground space. It could be land taken on rent or lease by the school management.”
“The requirement for a 1,200-square-yard playground for schools in urban areas and a 2,000-square-yard one in rural areas was mandatory only as per the old rules of the SHSE Act. At a time when land costs are so high, it is virtually impossible for schools to get such a huge piece of land,” the letter states.
The association also raised concerns at the fact that approval for appointments of physical training (PT) teachers at grant-in-aid schools has been pending since September 2009 and that the number of students opting for PT as an elective subject in class X is going down.
Bhaskar Patel, president of the association, said, “The board’s decision is not practical. It will put a financial burden on institutions.”
Sources said that the government must also take into account the financial position of schools while introducing such rules, especially when the state education board has imposed a cap on the fees schools can charge by setting up a fee regulation committee.

‘FIR not a must to presume death’

HC Paves Way To Sell Property Of Man Missing Since 1970

In an important order, Gujarat high court has ruled that a person continually absent from home for seven years and unheard of by his family, friends or acquaintances can be presumed to be dead.
The court said that the missing person’s family is not required to either lodge an FIR or to inform any authority upon a person going missing, for the law does not lay down any procedure for declaring a person presumed dead. There is no requirement of the police investigation to trace the missing person or police record to raise the presumption. In such cases, the burden of proof lies on the person who insists that the missing person is still alive.
With this observation, the high court on Tuesday held a person, who had gone missing in 1970, presumed dead and paved way for his family members to sell a joint family property in Maninagar, which has remained unsold for decades because the person did not return for 38 long years after leaving home.
The case involves a bungalow ‘Dhruv Nivas’ in Maninagar area. In 1970, 22-year-old Arvind Dhruv left home and has not returned till date. The family members did not inquire into his whereabouts since he was a wanderer who used to get irritated upon being asked about his location.
As decades passed, the family planned to sell the property, a 352-sq m bungalow. It faced problems in transferring the property because Dhruv was a natural heir. In 1994, his father issued an advertisement stating that Dhruv had nothing to do with the family property since he was missing. This did not solve the issue.
After waiting for more than a decade, Dhruv’s family moved a civil court in 2012 for the declaration that he should be presumed dead and the family is allowed to sell the property. The civil court last year rejected their suit saying that Dhruv could not be presumed dead because the family had not registered an FIR and there was no police investigation.
When the order was challenged in the HC, Justice J B Pardiwala observed that the Indian Evidence Act does not provide any procedure to declare a person presumed dead, except the condition of his continuous absence for seven years be satisfied. The court said, “Where a person is continually absent from home for a period of seven years unheard of by persons known other than his own family members, who would have naturally received intelligence from him, he is presumed to be dead. The burden of proving that he is alive thereafter is shifted to the person, who affirms that he is not dead. It is a rebuttable presumption.”
In Dhruv’s case, the judge said that if Dhruv was alive after 1970, there was no reason for him not to contact his immediate family. “The fact that he has not contacted his family members at all since 1970 makes me, as a man of ordinary prudence, believe that Arvindbhai must have died in 1970 or soon thereafter,” the court said.

SC: No BS-IV cars after April 2020

SC bans the sale of BS-IV vehicles from April 2020

The Supreme Court ruled on 24 Oct 2018 that the manufacture and sale of BS-IV vehicles will not be allowed after BS-VI norms are introduced from April 1, 2020, to curb pollution. The court turned down a plea of the Centre and auto firms for a six-month window to sell their existing stock. The court asked the auto industry to show the “will, responsibility and urgency” to adopt BS-VI fuels. The SC said there is sufficient time for the manufacturers to change over to the new system and, there is no reason why they should be given a window of three or six months for sale of accumulated vehicles.

The court turned down a plea of the Centre and automobile companies for a six-month window to sell their existing stock of vehicles.
A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta said in case of a conflict between health and wealth, health will have to be given precedence and asked the auto industry to show the “will, responsibility and urgency” to adopt the cleaner BS VI fuels to protect the health of citizens. “When we are concerned with the health of the entire citizenry, the larger public interest has to outweigh the much smaller pecuniary interest of the industry, in this case, the automobile industry,” Justice Gupta said

Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Needed For ‘Maintenance’ Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC, Reiterates SC

‘The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not necessary.’
The Supreme Court, while setting aside a Karnataka High Court order that had dismissed a maintenance petition for want of proof of marriage, has reiterated that in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such strict proof of marriage is not necessary.
In this case (Kamala vs. MR Mohan Kumar), the Family court had observed that there was a husband-wife relationship between the parties and children are born out of the said wedlock. It had then directed the ‘husband’ to pay maintenance. In revision petition filed by the ‘husband’, the high court held that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that the marriage was solemnized as per custom and she, not being the legally wedded wife, is not entitled for any maintenance.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee, referring to the evidence on record, said the oral evidence given by the ‘wife’ coupled with documents raise a strong presumption of a valid marriage. Referring to testimonies of other witnesses, it said that it is established that the parties cohabitated as husband and wife and that the people around them treated them as husband and wife.
The bench said that, unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. Quoting from the apex court judgment in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, the bench said a broad and extensive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” under Section 125 CrPC. In the said judgment, it was observed: “We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”
Restoring the Family court order granting maintenance, the bench said when the Family court held that there was a valid marriage, the high court, being the revisional court, has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact.
Full Judgement 

PM Modi conferred with Seoul Peace Prize

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been conferred with the Seoul Peace Prize for 2018 for his contribution to international cooperation and fostering global economic growth.

The Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement Wednesday that Modi expressed his gratitude for the prestigious honour and in the light of India' deepening partnership with the Republic of Korea, he has accepted the award.

"The world acknowledges. PM Narendra Modi awarded prestigious Seoul Peace Prize 2018 for contribution to high economic growth in India and world through 'Modinomics', contribution to world peace, improving human development & furthering democracy in India," MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar tweeted.

The ministry said the award will be presented to Modi by the Seoul Peace Prize Foundation at a mutually convenient time.

The Seoul Peace Prize was established in 1990 to commemorate the success of the 24th Olympic Games held in Seoul. The award was established to crystalise Korean people's yearning for peace on the Korean peninsula and in the rest of the world.

While conferring the award on Modi, the award committee recognised his contribution to the growth of Indian and global economies, crediting 'Modinomics' for reducing social and economic disparity between the rich and the poor, the MEA said.

The committee lauded Modi's initiatives to make the government cleaner through anti-corruption measures and demonetisation, it said.

The committee also credited him for his contribution toward reginal and global peace through a proactive policy with countries around the world under the 'Modi doctrine' and the act east policy, it said.

He is the 14th recepient of the award and the past laureates included former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and renowned international relief organizations like Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam.PTI

SC Explains When Doctrine Of Res Judicata As Between Co-Defendants Can Be Applied

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the following four conditions are required to be satisfied while considering the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata as between co-defendants:
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned;
  • It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims;
  • The question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and
  • The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.
In this case (Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan), the father of the plaintiff and father of defendant were co-defendants in an earlier suit and had pleaded or given evidence to the effect that the entire property was purchased by the father of the defendant by way of court auction. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, the issue of res judicata was raised. The suit was finally decreed by the high court rejecting the res judicata argument.
In this context, the bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar observed that since the question of inter se title between the defendant’s father and the plaintiffs’ father was not in issue and was also not required to be decided in the disputes then raised, obviously, the doctrine of res judicata cannot be applied between such co-defendants.
The bench said: “There exist certain situations in which principles of res judicata may apply as between co-defendants. This has been recognized by the English Courts as well as our Courts for more than a century. The requisite conditions to apply the principle of res judicata as between co-defendants are that (a) there must be conflict of interest between the defendants concerned, (b) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims and (c) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided. All the three requisite conditions are absent in the matter on hand.”
The court referred to Privy Council decisions in this aspect and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail and Others, and said: “It is true that under Section 11 of the CPC, when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would operate as res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. For instance, if in a suit by P against D1 and D2, the matter is directly and substantially in issue between D1 and D2 and adjudication upon that matter was necessary to determine the suit to grant relief to P, the adjudication would operate as res judicata in subsequent suits between D1 and D2 in which either of them is plaintiff or defendant. In other words, if a plaintiff cannot get his claimed relief without trying and deciding a case between the co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case in its entirety including the conflict of interest between the co-defendants and the codefendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound as between each other.”
As regards the ‘admission’ argument, the bench observed that an admission can always be explained, unless such an admission gives rise to the principle of estoppel. “The principle of estoppel could have arisen if the father of the defendant had acted to his detriment on the basis of the representation made by the plaintiffs’ father as the basic requirement for attracting the principle of estoppel, is that the person to whom the representation has been made must have acted on the basis of such representation, and particularly to his own detriment. In the matter on hand, the father of the defendant knew about the correct position on facts and he very well knew that he was the owner to the extent of 50% of the property only, and as he did not act to his detriment, the question of estoppel does not arise.”

Full Judgment 

Week after installation, India’s first Bitcoin ATM in B’luru seized, co-founder held

A week after virtual currency exchange company Unocoin installed India’s first Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru's Kempfort Mall amid much fanfare, the Cyber Crime Police in Bengaluru has registered a case against Unocoin for setting up the ATM without permission and have also arrested the company's co-founder Harish BN (37).
The ATM was set up despite the Reserve Bank of India's crackdown on cryptocurrency in India.
In a statement to the media, the Cyber Crime department of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) stated, “The ATM kiosk installed by Unocoin in Bengaluru's Kempfort Mall has not taken any permission from the state government and is dealing in cryptocurrency outside the remit of the law."
The police also arrested Harish and seized several gadgets and Rs 1.79 lakh in cash from him. The materials seized included two laptops, one mobile, three credit cards, five debit cards, one passport, five company seals and one cryptocurrency device.  Harish was produced in the 1st ACMM Court in Bengaluru before he was taken into police custody.
Installed by virtual currency exchange company Unocoin, the ATM in Kempfort Mall allowed customers to deposit and withdraw a minimum amount of Rs 1,000.
It was touted as India's first bitcoin ATM and was installed circumventing RBI regulations against bitcoin transaction. The RBI had ruled earlier this year in a notification – ‘Prohibition on Dealing in Virtual Currencies’ – that financial institutions associated with the RBI are not permitted to deal in cryptocurrency. The central bank had also stated that cryptocurrency is not legal tender.
Unocoin believed that it had complied with RBI rules and claimed in a statement that it is merely attempting to accommodate “newer mechanisms and solutions to reduce the hurdle facing (regulatory) hurdles by the present central governments stand.” Users of the erstwhile ATM could withdraw and deposit bitcoins but could not buy or sell them.
The ATM was not yet operational and was also moved from Bengaluru's Kempfort Mall to another location after several reports emerged in the media both criticising and hailing the installation of the ATM.  Unocoin was planning to install similar ATMs in Mumbai and Delhi.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

No commercial permit for vehicles running on ethanol

Electric-battery operated vehicles and the ones running on 100% ethanol or methanol will now not require commercial permits from the state transportation departments. The transport ministry has exempted these categories of vehicles running on clean and alternative fuel from the purview of permit conditions.
This move will not only reduce corruption at regional transport offices (RTO) but also end the restrictive practices which different states have put in place.
“The exemption to get a permit will liberalise the plying of vehicles and we will see an increase in the number of electric buses and auto-rickshaws in cities,” a transport ministry official said. Officials said the increase in a number of vehicles running on alternative fuel will be a big game changer as it will help reduce India’s dependence on imported crude.
Officials said the exemption from permit does not mean the vehicles won’t comply with other conditions — valid registration, fitness, passenger insurance cover and pollution under control certificate in the case of ethanol and methanol vehicles.

Officials said the rise in the number of vehicles running on alternative fuel will be a big game-changer as it will help reduce India’s dependence on imported crude

Married man gets 14 years in jail for raping minor

A 25-year-old man was convicted by a local court for raping a 16-year-old girl and sentenced to 14 years in jail under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act on Tuesday. The accused, who is married and father of a child, developed a relationship with the minor girl after promising marriage and raped her in October 2016.

Pravin Lanjewar, a resident of Dabholi village, was booked under various sections of Indian Penal Code for kidnapping; rape; kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her to marriage and Pocso. The prosecution could not prove kidnapping charges against Lanjwar and hence he was convicted for rape and sexual assault only.
He was sentenced to 10 years in jail for rape and 14 years imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Pocso.

Lanjewar was a tenant in a house close to the rape survivor’s house where she lived with her family. The accused lived with his family and the rape survivor used to come to play with his baby often. The accused developed friendship with the girl and started meeting her alone.
She went missing on October 23, 2016. Her family lodged a complaint at Chowk Bazaar police station. Since Lanjewar was also missing, the girl’s family named him as the prime suspect. The girl was found after 20 days. The rape survivor told police that she was taken by Lanjewar to his native village near Nagpur in Maharashtra.

“The court observed that despite being married and aware of consequences of his act, the man committed the crime against the girl for which he was being sentenced to jail,” said Dipesh Dave, public

Shopping Mall challenges free parking

Gujarat high court’s directions to malls and multiplexes regarding collecting parking charges have not gone down well with the mall owners with one of them from Vadodara challenging the order before a division bench.

Vadodara’s Inorbit Malls (India) Pvt Ltd has moved the HC against the general directions issued by the single-judge bench on October 17 that the malls and multiplex would provide free parking to visitors for first one hour. Later, they can charge Rs 30 for four-wheelers and Rs 10 for two-wheelers at the most per day.

The appellant has contended that in absence of any policy or norms, the court ought not to have passed directions on collection of parking charges by private commercial complexes. The mall management seems to have objection to the cap put by the high court on parking charges. 

The HC has directed the state government to form parking policy, for the government was insisting that the malls and multiplexes should not be allowed to collect parking charges. The police commissioners of Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat cities had issued notices to the malls and multiplexes asking them to stop levying parking fees. The HC has, however, quashed these notices. A bench headed by the chief justice is likely to hear the appeal on Wednesday.

Gujarat HC quashes rape FIR against Surat doctor

Gujarat high court granted relief to a Surat-based fertility specialist Dr Praful Doshi on Monday, as it quashed the FIR lodged against him by a married woman for allegedly raping her at his clinic last month.
Justice A Y Kogje quashed the FIR on a petition filed by the doctor, requesting to put an end to the proceedings after he and the complainant reached a compromise. The court junked the FIR with the observation that as the complainant did not have a grievance, carrying out the investigation and prosecution would not serve any purpose and would be an abuse of the process of law.
Doshi was booked on September 5 at Athwa police station after a 28-year-old woman alleged that he raped her at his hospital in Nanpura the previous afternoon.
Police arrested the doctor and secured his custodial interrogation. Police investigation revealed that the complainant had visited the doctor’s clinic on the day of the alleged incident. Police recovered CCTV footage to substantiate the charges.
After the rape case was reported to the police, some 25 women staged a demonstration against Doshi on the court campus.
However, in the 40 days since the FIR was registered, the complainant settled the dispute with the doctor and told the HC that she did not want the doctor’s prosecution.

Changed rules to seek reasons for renouncing Indian citizenship

Those renouncing Indian citizenship on account of being national of another country will now have to declare the circumstances or reasons due to which they intend to acquire foreign citizenship.
The home ministry, while notifying the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2018, also made it clear that only one living spouse of foreign origin of a citizen of India or overseas citizen of India (OCI) would be eligible to apply for registration as an OCI cardholder. “This is in conformity with the law in India that bans polygamy (except in case of Muslims by virtue of their personal law),” said a home ministry official.
The amended rules also require Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) who are ordinarily resident in India for six months, spouse of a citizen of India and minor child of a citizen of India to specify their religion in their applications for registration as a citizen of India under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act.
The government has notified a revised form for declaration of renunciation by Indian citizens who are also nationals of another country, bringing it in line with the Citizenship Rules, 2009, that require the applicants to specify under which provision of law they are Indian citizens and also the circumstances in which they intend to acquire foreign citizenship.
“While the Citizenship Rules required the said information to be given in the declaration of renunciation of Indian citizenship, Form XXII prescribed for the purpose did not have entries to record the same. The revised form corrects this anomaly,” said the official.
The revised form requires the applicant to specify whether he/she is/ was an Indian citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation; as well as the circumstances that have led him/her to acquire foreign citizenship.
An MHA functionary clarified that the information seeking reasons for renunciation of Indian citizenship is only for record and shall not be used as a ground for rejection of the application.

SC says only ‘green’ crackers this Diwali, bans online sale

This year’s Diwali is set to be different as the Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted only “green” firecrackers with reduced noise and emission levels and fixed a two-hour period for bursting them during festivals and other celebrations to reduce air pollution.

While turning down the plea for a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of firecrackers across the country, a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, set out stringent standards for their manufacture besides putting restrictions on bursting them.

Holding that smoke from firecrackers contributes significantly towards deteriorating air quality, particularly during Diwali, the bench also banned the online sale of firecrackers through e-commerce sites like Amazon and Flipkart. The court also banned “joined firecrackers” (series crackers or ladis) and directed police to ensure that only “green” crackers are sold in the country.

The apex court said: “On Diwali day or on any other festivals like Gurpurab etc, when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be from 8pm till 10 pm. On Christmas and New Year’s Eve, when such fireworks start around midnight, it would be from 11.55pm till 12.30am only.” The timing would be applicable also to other occasions and celebrations like weddings.

The court turned down the plea that restrictions should not be imposed on bursting of firecrackers during Diwali as it is a part of the festival and would amount to violation of rights of manufacturers to carry on their trade and business. The bench said it did not find merit in such contention and hinted that more stringent measures could be imposed in future “if the situation so warrants”. The court accepted the plea of the Centre which suggested that the use of green crackers be allowed as the emission of particulate matter would be reduced by 30-35%.
The bench said the study revealed that PM2.5 mass concentrations increased due to firecrackers and on Diwali, both PM10 and PM 2.5 had increased 2 to 3.5 times in Delhi.

Monday, October 22, 2018

Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma's secretary, 2 more held for Rs 20 crore blackmail in Noida

A long-time personal secretary to Paytm  founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma was among three people arrested in Noida on Monday for allegedly trying to extort Rs 20 crore from him. The trio claimed to be in possession of data that included personal information on Sharma that the former secretary, Sonia Dhawan, is suspected to have stolen as she had access to his laptop, phone and office desktop.

Another Paytm staffer- Devender Kumar of the administration department- was also involved in the alleged extortion plot. Sonia and Devender were at their desks in the company's Noida office when a police team took them into custody. The third accused is Sonia's husband Rupak Jain, a property dealer. Police are looking for a fourth suspect, an associate of Jain's who is believed to be in Kolkata. "We are in touch with Kolkata police for help," Noida police chief Ajay Pal Sharma said.

Police said Sonia, who is in her early 30s, had been working with Sharma for the last 10 years - basically the entire period from the time Paytm was founded (in 2010) and its phenomenal growth after
Demonetisation in 2016. Devender too has been with Paytm for seven years, almost since its inception.
The arrests were made based after a complaint by Sharma, who said his brother got the first extortion call on September 20 by a person who identified himself as Rohit Chopal (Chopal is the fourth suspect, though this may not be his real name). The Paytm founder's brother Ajay Sharma is a senior vice-president in the company. The caller allegedly asked Sharma to pay up for the data he had acquired.
Speaking to TOI, Ajay Sharma said, "I received the first call on September 20, around 4pm, when the man demanded Rs 10 crore for the information. When I refused to pay, he called Vijay." Chopal repeated the same demand of Rs 10 crore to the founder before ratcheting it up to Rs 20 crore over the next few calls he made.
After several interactions, Chopal settled for Rs 2 lakh to be transferred initially. "We made the offer for Rs 2 lakh as we wanted to get more information from the man making the demands," explained Ajay. The money was transferred online. "After the transaction was made, we requested Chopal to tell us how he stole the data but he wanted more money. We convinced him that after he revealed the source of the data to us, we would transfer more money. That's when he told us that Sonia, Rupak Jain and Devender had stolen the data from the company and handed it over to him. They had hired Chopal to make the extortion call," said Ajay.
Noida police chief Ajay Pal Sharma said all three had admitted to their involvement in the extortion plot after interrogation. According to the police chief, Sonia was the mastermind behind the extortion plan. Sonia and Jain live in Prateek Laurel in Sector 120. As personal secretary, Sonia had access to the Paytm chief's laptop and mobile phone, office desktop and other financial information. It was easy for her to steal data and pass it to Chopal. "Both Vijay Sharma and his brother Ajay submitted the recording of the extortion calls and the complaint with a profile of those involved. We based our arrests on investigation after the complaint was filed," said the police chief.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Sex Maniac in UK city

20 men guilty of sex abuse in major grooming gang
Shocking: The abuse took place in Huddersfield between 2004 and 2011
A GANG of men who embarked on a 'campaign of rape and other sexual abuse' against vulnerable teenage girls in Huddersfield has been given lengthy jail sentences, it can now be reported.

Ringleader Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life earlier this year and told he must serve a minimum of 18 years in prison by a judge who said: 'Your treatment of these girls was inhuman.'

Dhaliwal is one of 20 men who have been found guilty of scores of offences in a series of trials at Leeds Crown Court.

Fifteen women told juries what happened to them between 2004 and 2011 when they were aged between 11 and 17.

Those already sentenced have received prison terms totalling 221 years.

The series of three trials has been subject to a blanket reporting ban, which was partially lifted today.

It was towards the end of the second of these trials, in May, that English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson was arrested as he reported about the case live on Facebook from outside the court.

Robinson was jailed for contempt of court — with the judge telling him his actions could have caused the trial to be re-run, costing 'hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds' — but his conviction was later quashed and the case is due to be heard again at the Old Bailey next week.

Dhaliwal, who has children of his own, was convicted of 54 separate counts, including 22 rapes, involving 11 girls.

Rehearing: Tommy Robinson
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC told him earlier this year: 'You treated them as commodities to be passed around for your own sexual gratification and the gratification of others.

'The extent and gravity of your offending far exceeds anything which I have previously encountered.

'It was a very significant campaign of rape and other sexual abuse.

'Children's lives have been ruined and families profoundly affected by seeing their children, over months and years, out of control, having been groomed by you and other members of your gang.'

The girls, who are now all adults, told the juries how they believed they were being shown genuine affection and attention as they were groomed in Huddersfield.

But Judge Marson told the men this was 'deliberately created to enable predatory men such as you to perpetrate gross sexual abuse for your own perverted gratification'.

The judge noted that at least one girl attempted suicide.

One of the girls was seen being thrown out of a moving car outside her home. She had bruises all over her face and was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Dhaliwal, of Holly Road, Huddersfield, was jailed in June along with seven other men, who received jail sentences of between eight and 18 years.

After the second trial, which also ended in June, eight more men were given jail sentences of between five and 18 years.

Four more men were found guilty of a range of offences earlier this month following the third trial and will be sentenced on November 1.

The men referred to each other using a series of nicknames, which were also used as their monikers during the trials.

They included 'Beastie', 'Dracula' and 'Nurse'.

The pattern of large-scale exploitation of mainly white girls by groups of men of mainly Pakistani heritage uncovered by West Yorkshire Police in Huddersfield mirrors what has happened in a number of other towns including Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford.

The restriction that banned reporting of the Huddersfield trials was lifted by the Recorder of Leeds Judge Guy Kearl QC following representations by a number of media organisations.