The Allahabad High Court, while canceling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused of cheating, said that the order obtained by misleading the court is rebuttable.

A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Cancellation Application filed by Mohd Ishtiyak Khan.

The bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant (complainant) with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no 2 by the Court on 9.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C, in Criminal Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri.

Counsel for the applicant has stated that the said order is liable to be cancelled, as it was garnered by the opposite party no 2 by misleading the Court and concealing the fact of seven criminal antecedents of the applicant.

The Court noted that,

Counsel has next stated that the order itself indicates as follows:-

“Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The said sale deed has been executed in favour of his wife Sudha @ Neelam. A civil suit has been filed by the informant in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mainpuri, wherein the wife of the applicant has categorically stated that she does not want to carry on the sale deed executed in her favour and the said property may be handed over to the informant. There is no other criminal history of the applicant except one case in which he has been acquitted vide order dated 15.12.2010.

Counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.”

Counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court passed in A.V Papayya Sastry & others vs Government of A.P & Others.

It was also opined in the said judgement that a judgement, decree or order obtained by fraud by the first Court or by the final court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Lord Denning had observed that in the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502, that “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud.”

Counsel has stated that any party seeking relief from a court has to come with clean hands and as such, in light of the aforesaid judgements, any order garnered by playing fraud with it, has no sanctity in law and is thus, liable to be set aside.

Per contra, counsel for the opposite party no 2 has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the applicant has no knowledge of the said criminal history and he has stated that he has explained three cases, in which he has been acquitted, although he could not dispute the fact that the said factum of criminal history has not been mentioned in the said anticipatory bail application.

It is also stated that in one case, the applicant is on bail, in one other case, he is not wanted and the remaining case is under U.P Gangsters Act, in which he is on bail.

“The opposite party no 2 has not come with clean hands to the Court and has obtained the previous order dated 9.12.2022 by concealing the fact of seven criminal antecedents of him. Thus, he has played fraud in obtaining the judgement, as enunciated in Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.

As such, the said order dated 9.12.2022 granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party no 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is set aside, as it has been garnered by misleading the Court and committing fraud with it”, the Court observed while allowing the bail cancellation application.

“However, two weeks’ time from the date of pronouncement of this Judgment is granted to opposite party no 2 to surrender before the concerned Trial Court and thereafter it will be open for opposite party no 2 to pray for regular bail, which may be considered in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another”, the Court ordered.

The High Court of Delhi on Wednesday issued notice on a petition, which questioned the educational qualification of Union Minister Smriti Irani on the grounds that she furnished ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ information in three affidavits filed before the Election Commission of India in 2004, 2011 and 2014.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while noting that Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant had accepted the notice on behalf of the Respondent/State, listed the petition for further hearing on arguments on maintainability on October 19.

The APP today questioned the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that petitioner Ahmer Khan did not approach the Sessions Court and directly moved the High Court by filing a revision petition.

However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plea was maintainable as the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction.

The petitioner had challenged a trial court order, which rejected his complaint and also refused to summon Irani in the matter.

The petition alleged that Irani gave false information about her educational qualification, while filing her nominations for elections to the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Khan further stated in the complaint that for contesting elections to the Lok Sabha in 2004 from Chandni Chowk, Irani stated in her affidavit that she had completed her BA in 1996 from the Delhi University (School of Correspondence).

However, Irani, while filling her nomination for the Rajya Sabha polls from Gujarat in 2011, filed another affidavit, stating that her highest educational qualification was B. Com Part 1 School of Correspondence-University of Delhi in 1994.

He further mentioned another affidavit filed by the Union Minister in 2014 for contesting elections to the Lok Sabha from Amethi, wherein she stated that she did her Bachelor of Commerce Part-1 from school of open learning (Correspondence) University of Delhi in 1994.

Khan submitted that there was a clear discrepancy in the three affidavits and that Irani deliberately furnished false information.

He said that the Metropolitan Magistrate vide an impugned order passed on October 18, 2016, rejected his complaint and declined to summon Irani on completely ‘unfounded’, ‘speculative’ and ‘frivolous’ grounds.

As per the petitioner, the Metropolitan Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint by recording a ‘positive’ finding that no prima facie case was made against Irani.

He submitted that the Magistrate had literally conferred a degree to the accused respondent by holding that it was clear from CW4/B that she had passed subsidiary papers chosen vide CW4/A and hence, no false information was given qua her educational qualification, which was completely illegal, without authority and untenable. 

Khan said the Magistrate further observed that there was no rule to stop a person from claiming to have passed the examination of 1st year of Bachelor even if she has not completed the full course.

Khan was represented by Advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Sheena T. and Ayushi Mittal. APP Manoj Pant appeared for the State.

(Case title: Ahmer Khan vs State & Anr)

The Delhi High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea highlighting the sale of misleading Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) solutions, which is administered to prevent dehydration caused more particularly due to diarrhoea, by leading pharmaceutical brands in the Indian market, asking to the competent authority to treat the petition as a representation. 

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D. N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a plea by a JNU Professor, alleging that Johnson and Johnson Private Limited’s ORSL, ORSL Plus, ORSL Rehydrate; and Amrutanjan Health Care Limited’s Fruitnik Electro+ ORS does not conform to the ORS formulation prescribed by the World Health Organisation. 

The Bench asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) or any other competent authority to treat the petition as a representation and to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the facts of the case, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties in case any adverse order is to be passed against any of the respondents.

Filed though Advocate Gurinder Pal Singh by one Rupa Singh, a mother of an eight-year-old girl, who administered ‘ORSL’ to her daughter under the belief of giving ‘ORS’, which resulted in deterioration of her child’s health. A paediatrician, subsequently, informed her that ‘ORSL’ is not ‘ORS’ and does not even have the composition as prescribed by WHO, claimed the plea.

The petition pointed out that the Drug Controller General of India, in June 2004, issued a notification to all ORS manufacturing companies to introduce ORS with reduced osmolarity of 245 mOsmol/l, in conformity with the WHO standards. 

It further pointed out that manufacture and sale of ORS other than those conforming to the parameters prescribed by the WHO is prohibited by the Centre under Section 26A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Relying on various articles written by several paediatricians, the plea stated that consumption of ‘ORSL’ or ‘Fruitnik Electro+ ORS’ drinks is harmful during diarrhoea, as these contain fruit juices or are high in sugar, which could adversely affect the health of the consumer of such drinks.

The plea alleged that sale of such fruit juice-based drinks, which are not meant to be manufactured, distributed or marketed as an ‘ORS’ drink using names like ‘ORSL’, create deception and confusion amongst consumers, as also amongst in-store or online pharmacies selling these drinks.

The petitioner inter alia prays for the following: a) A direction to take appropriate steps to inform the general public of the nature of risk to health involved in administration of such misleading drinks;  as also to reduce or eliminate such risk.

b) Publicizing and making school authorities aware that ‘ORSL’, ‘ORSL Plus’, ‘ORSL Rehydrate’ and ‘Fruitnik Electro+ ORS’ are not to be administered to children as an ORS option.

c) Ensuring compliance with Rule 5 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, and prohibiting advertisement, marketing or sale of such drinks, including free sale in school campus or to school children, in an area within 50 meters from the school gate.

d) Ensuring strict compliance of Section 30 and 34 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and prohibiting the manufacturing, storage, marketing, distribution and/or sale of ‘ORSL’, ‘ORSL Plus’, ‘ORSL Rehydrate’ and ‘Fruitnik Electro+ ORS’ in the manner shown and description projected as at present and in their present labelling format.

Read Also: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea seeking CBI probe into alleged smuggling of iron ore to China, evasion of duty

e) A direction to the FSSAI and manufacturers of such drinks to make modifications in their packaging labels so as to remove any doubt or misgiving about the products; and further, to add ‘disclaimers’ in bold clearly mentioning that “it is not an ORS”, “it is not a WHO recommended formula” and “its use in diarrhoea would be injurious to health.f) Initiating prosecution against the manufacturers of the aforementioned drinks for intentionally and deliberately cheating the public at large by fraudulently making them believe their products to be ‘ORS’ and thereby causing health and monetary loss to the public.

g) Ensuring strict enforcement and implementation of Advertising and Labelling Regulations in relation to online pharmacies to enable average customers to check and verify all product related information.