The Hindu : Front Page : Women on night duty: case reopened

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 06, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Women on night duty: case reopened

J. Venkatesan

FIR filed after rape and murder of BPO employee in 2005
U.P. urged to restore provision for anticipatory bail

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reopened the case relating to dismissal of the petition filed by Som Mittal, Managing Director of Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd, seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him by the Karnataka police alleging that his company had violated a State government order prohibiting night shift for women.

After the rape and murder of Pratibha Srikant Murthy, an employee, on December 13, 2005, the police had filed an FIR accusing the BPO chief of violating statutory orders. Mr. Mittal’s plea for quashing of FIR was rejected by the Karnataka High Court. On January 29, an apex court Bench of Justice H.K. Sema and Justice Markandey Katju dismissed Mr. Mittal’s appeal.

Ordinance

However, in the same judgment, Mr. Justice Katju had recommended to the Uttar Pradesh government to issue an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail to an accused. The U.P. government had amended the Criminal Procedure Code in 1976 to withdraw this provision in the State.

Subsequent to the judgment, Mr. Justice Sema in a brief reference order said: “The appeal [of Mr. Mittal] is dismissed in terms of the signed judgments. Since there is difference of opinion [between the two judges] on the legal issue, let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.”

Verdict reserved

Accordingly, a Bench of Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R. V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal reserved the verdict after hearing senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Mittal, and counsel Sanjay Hegde, for Karnataka.

During the hearing, the CJI pointed out to Mr. Venugopal that since both Mr. Justice Sema and Mr. Justice Katju had dismissed the appeal, the matter could not be reopened.

However, Mr. Venugopal argued that the “legal issue” mentioned in the reference would include whether the criminal proceedings ought to have been quashed or not.

Mr. Justice Raveendran told counsel that the only legal issue referred was whether a single judge (Mr. Justice Katju) could give a judgment (directing the U.P. government to restore anticipatory bail provision) within a judgment and the appeal itself could not be reopened. The Bench, however, reserved verdict on the reference.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page