24 April 2025 Legal Updates

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT | NO DISCRETION TO DENY RELEASE OF CONVICT ON PROBATION WHEN CONDITIONS ARE MET: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 22, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan

Facts of the Case

The case involved two appellants (a mother-in-law and her son) who were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for subjecting the deceased daughter-in-law to cruelty. The incident occurred on January 11, 2008, when a quarrel erupted over how to celebrate the birthday of the daughter of the deceased and the husband). Following the dispute, where the mother-in-law had her way with the support of her son, the deceased, who was only 19 years old, set herself ablaze and ultimately passed away on January 16, 2008, due to burn injuries.
In her dying declaration, the deceased stated that the appellants never demanded dowry but occasionally beat her and verbally abused her by calling her a mental patient. The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 304-B (dowry death) but convicted them under Section 498A (cruelty). The mother in law was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, while husband received two years. The High Court of Madras partially allowed their appeal by reducing the second appellant's sentence to one year but maintained the conviction.

Issues

Whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which both the Sessions Court and the High Court failed to consider.

Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court maintained the conviction but remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of probation. The Court observed:
1. Both trial courts failed to consider the question of probation, which was mandatory as per Section 361 of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
2. The Court discussed the relationship between Section 360 CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation Act, noting that the latter is wider and more expansive in its coverage, applying to any offense not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
3. The Court emphasized that courts have a mandatory duty to consider whether an offender deserves the benefit of probation based on:

• The circumstances of the case
• The nature of the offense
• The character of the offender

4. The Court held that while probation is not a matter of right, courts must consider it where applicable, and if denied, reasons must be recorded.
5. The Court noted that a report from a probation officer is a condition precedent for granting probation, though courts are not bound by such reports.

  SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE DIRECT BANK TRANSFER OF COMPENSATION TO ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS & WORKMEN  

(a) Case Title:

• In Re: Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c)  Date of Decision:

• April 22, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

This case originated from an email by Shri B.B. Pathak, a retired District Judge from Gujarat, highlighting a significant issue: large amounts of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 remain unclaimed and deposited with various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) and Labour Courts across India.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of this issue and requested data from several High Courts. The findings revealed substantial unclaimed compensation amounts:

• Gujarat: ₹282 crores (MACT) and ₹6.61 crores (Labour Courts)
• Allahabad: ₹239 crores (MACT) and ₹92.39 crores (Labour Courts)
• Calcutta: ₹2.53 crores (MACT)
• Bombay: ₹459.10 crores
• Goa: ₹3.61 crores

Concerned that successful claimants were being deprived of their rightful compensation, the Court issued comprehensive directions to address this problem. The key directives include:

1. Enhanced Documentation Requirements:

• Collection of comprehensive details of claimants including addresses, Aadhaar, PAN, and email
• Verification of bank account details through banker certificates or cancelled cheques

2. Procedural Improvements:

• Direct transfer of compensation to claimants' verified bank accounts
• Investment of deposited amounts in fixed deposits with auto-renewal instructions
• Regular verification and updates of claimants' contact details

3. Technological Solutions:

• Creation of dashboards by High Courts to track deposited compensation amounts

4. Proactive Outreach:

• Direction to initiate a "massive drive" to locate entitled persons who haven't claimed compensation
• Involvement of District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities and para-legal volunteers
• Support from local police and revenue officers to trace claimants

5.    Monitoring Mechanism:

• State Legal Services Authorities to monitor compliance and report within four months
• High Courts to implement directions and submit compliance reports by July 30, 2025
• Follow-up hearing scheduled for August 18, 2025

The Court clarified that these directions would remain binding until appropriate rules are framed by state governments, and that High Courts are free to take additional measures to ensure compensation reaches the rightful claimants.

  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC DIRECTS CHILD'S RETURN TO MOTHER, SAYS INDIAN COURT CANNOT BE MISUSED BY FOREIGNER  

(a) Case Title:

• Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas v. Union of India and Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 22, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul

Case Summary

This habeas corpus petition was filed by a mother seeking custody of her minor child, who was allegedly being illegally detained in India by the father in violation of a Canadian court order.

Background Facts

The petitioner (mother) and respondent No. 8 (father) were married in Canada in 2018, and their child was born in Canada in 2021 with Canadian nationality. Due to marital discord and alleged domestic violence, the couple separated in January 2024. In July 2024, the father obtained permission from a Canadian court to travel to India with the child for 2-3 weeks with a condition to return. The father failed to return to Canada with the child and did not maintain the communication required by court orders. In November 2024, the Canadian court granted sole custody of the child to the mother and directed the father to return the child within seven days, which he failed to do.

Key Legal Issues

• Maintainability of habeas corpus petition in an international child custody dispute
• Enforcement of foreign custody orders by Indian courts
• Application of the principle of "comity of courts" in international custody matters
• Determination of a child's welfare as the paramount consideration

Court's Findings

• The father had deliberately overstayed in India with the child in breach of the Canadian court's order.
• The father suppressed material facts when obtaining visa extensions in India, specifically not disclosing the Canadian court's November 2024 order granting sole custody to the mother.
• The child's Indian visa had expired, making the child's continued stay in India unauthorized.
• The father's filing of proceedings in an Indian family court seeking permanent custody demonstrated "forum shopping."

Legal Principles Applied

• The court cited precedents including Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State of NCT of Delhi (2017), Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal (2010), and V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India (2010), which established principles for handling international custody disputes.
• The court emphasized that Indian courts should ordinarily facilitate the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence.
• The court noted that India should not become a haven for those attempting to escape lawful orders passed by foreign courts.
• While recognizing the importance of international comity, the court reaffirmed that the paramount consideration must always be the welfare of the child.

Court's Decision

The court ordered that the child be repatriated to Canada in the custody of the mother based on:

• The father's retention of the child in India was unjustified and contrary to orders of the competent Canadian court
• The child's Indian visa had expired
• Observation of the child's comfortable interaction with the mother during court proceedings
• The principle that Indian courts should not be used to frustrate valid foreign judicial orders