Acid attacks: SC fiat to Centre, states on sale of acid

July 2, 2012

acid

New Delhi, July 2: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to apprise it of their measures to regulate the sale of acid to prevent its misuse as a weapon, particularly against women by their jilted lovers.

The court sought a "comprehensive affidavit" from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was asked to "consider proper action" for making appropriate provision for "regulation of sale of acids so that it is not easily or readily available to offenders."

A bench of justices R M Lodha and A R Dave also asked all the state governments and Union territories to file their replies to the notices issued to them on February 11, 2011 for restricting the sale of acid to prevent the growing incidents of attack on women with it.

The court on April 29 this year had asked the Union Home Ministry to coordinate with the various states and the Union territories for formulation of an appropriate scheme.

The apex court had also sought the responses of the Centre and the state governments on whether any suitable scheme can be prepared by them to provide adequate compensation to the victims for their treatment and rehabilitation.

The court's directions came during the hearing of a PIL, filed in 2006 by Laxmi, a minor girl whose arms, face and other body parts were disfigured in an acid attack.

Laxmi, through her counsel Aparna Bhat, had sought framing of a new law or amendment in the existing criminal laws like IPC, Indian Evidence Act and the CrPC for dealing with the offence and had also sought compensation.

Luxmi was subjected to acid attack by three youths near Tughlaq Road as she had refused to marry one of them. The trial is going on for the offence of attempt to murder and two of the accused are out on bail.

The Centre had earlier told the apex court that the report of the Law Commission on the issue was supplied to all concerned parties and the National Commission for Women has placed a draft legislation to make acid attack a serious offence.

The advocate had pleaded for a total ban of sale of acid as there were increasing number of incidents of such attacks on women in different states.

The counsel had submitted that even a small country like Bangladesh had banned the use of acid to prevent such attacks.

The apex court in its February 11, 2011 order had noted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been amended and Section 357A has been inserted by Act 5 of 2009.

It also noted that the amendment requires every state government, in coordination with the Central government, to prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victims or their dependants who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.

"Though the said section has come into effect on December 31, 2009 and more than a year has elapsed, we are informed that no schemes have been formulated by any of the state governments," the bench had noted in its order.

While issuing notices to the Centre and state governments in February 2011, the court had directed them to prepare schemes as provided in Section 357A for the purpose of providing compensation to victims of crimes, in particular, acid attack victims.


Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 11,2020

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 24,2020

Indore, Jan 24: Around 80 Muslim leaders of the BJP in Madhya Pradesh on Friday resigned from the primary membership of the party in protest over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, calling it a "divisive" measure.

One of the leaders, Rajik Qureshi Farshiwala, said around 80 Muslim partymen have resigned from the BJP's primary membership after writing to the newly-appointed national president, J P Nadda, on Thursday.

These leaders, who dubbed the CAA "a divisive provision made on religious grounds", include several office- bearers of the BJP's minority cell, he said.

"It was becoming increasingly difficult for us to participate in our community's events after the CAA came into existence (in December 2019).

"At these events, people used to curse us and ask us how long we plan to keep quiet on a divisive law like the CAA?" he said.

"Persecuted refugees of any community should get Indian citizenship. You cannot decide that a particular person is an intruder or a terrorist merely on the basis of religion," Farshiwala added.

In their letter, the Muslim leaders stated, "Citizens have right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. But the BJP-led Central Government is implementing the CAA on religious grounds.

"This is an act of dividing the country and against the basic spirit of the Constitution."

Some of the leaders who have resigned are considered close to BJP general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya.

When asked about the development, Vijayvargiya on Thursday evening said, "I am not aware of the matter. But we will explain (about the CAA) if a person is being misled."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: A court in Delhi on Wednesday convicted expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the death of the Unnao rape victim's father.

District judge Dharmesh Sharma said Sengar had no intention of killing the victim's father. “He was beaten in a brutal manner that led to his death,” the judge said.

The court had sent Sengar to jail on December 20 for the “remainder of his natural biological life” for raping the woman in 2017, when she was a minor.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had examined 55 witnesses in support of the case and the defence examined nine witnesses.

The court had recorded the statements of the rape survivor's uncle, mother, sister and one of her father's colleague who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident.

Charges were framed against Sengar, his brother Atul, Bhadauria, sub-inspector Kamta Prasad, constable Amir Khan and six others in the case.

The case was transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1 last year.

In July, 2019 a truck rammed into the car the rape victim was travelling in with some family members and her lawyer.

Two of her aunts died in the incident. She was airlifted from a hospital in Lucknow and to AIIMS in Delhi.

The victim has been provided accommodation in Delhi and is under CRPF protection.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.