Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 501 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
33. The facts in the present case are not very different. The
Complaints Committee has been set up pursuant to the judgment in
Vishaka's case. Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC itself covers a
situation where the statement is made before the authorized person.
The illustration to exception 8 reads as under:-
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
28. Without serving the copy of the enquiry report on Navneet Kaur
or any show cause notice the ESC terminated her services on 12th
August, 2008. Navneet Kaur thereafter filed yet another petition
challenging the said order. It is stated that as a result of her filing a
complaint against D.P. Gupta and D.K. Sareen for sexual harassment,
Navneet Kaur has got embroiled in 13 other cases. It is submitted
Navneet Kaur had also been transferred/removed from services.
Interestingly, it is stated that Navneet Kaur has herself never been
given a copy of the report of the Complaints Committee and it is only
pursuant to the order of 17th November, 2007 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1819/1996 that she was given a copy.
However, the said repot did not contain the copy of the statements
made before the Complaints Committee. It appears that in fact the
two delinquent officers had access to the records of the Complaints
Committee and also obtained copies of not only the report but the
depositions as well. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the
judgment in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam and Another
(1999) 3 SCC 134.
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hemraj Poonamchand vs Babulal Bhagirath on 30 August, 1961
35. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemraj
Poonamchand v. Babulal Bhagirath (supra) explains that the proviso
to Section 132 Evidence Act undoubtedly affords protection to a
witness who is compelled to answer but there cannot be such a
presumption every time a witness enters the witness box. The
Crl. MC Nos.7834-35/2006, 8473/2006, 8474/2006 &7836-37/2006 Page 21 of 23
compulsion has to be "definite and express."
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sukra Mahto vs Basdeo Kumar Mahto &. Anr on 2 April, 1971
The decisions in Balraj
Khanna v. Moti Ram AIR 1971 SC 1389 and Sukra Mahto v.
Basudeo Kumar Mahto AIR 1971 SC 1567 suggest that the question
as to which of the exceptions to Section 499 would apply can be
determined only at the trial. Still, these decisions do not deal with a
situation where the employees of an organisation are required to
depose before a Committee constituted by such organisation to
enquire into a complaint of sexual harassment.