Rape case against seer: HC refuses to change judge

Rape case against seer: HC refuses to change judge

Rape case against seer: HC refuses to change judge

The High Court on Thursday dismissed a female singer’s petition seeking transfer of the rape case against Ramachandrapura Mutt seer Raghaveshwara Bharati to another trial judge.

Justice Pradeep D Waingankar, dismissing the petition, said the prosecution, who is the master of the case, has no grievance against the presiding officer (judge) and merely because the petitioner is asking for the transfer of the case, it cannot be granted.

The bench, in its order, said there is no good ground made out to transfer the case and moreover, the annual general transfer of judicial officers was fast approaching. The bench however directed the presiding officer to hear the plea with regard to cancellation of bail within one month.

The petitioner had expressed apprehension that no fair and impartial inquiry or trial would be conducted as she contented that the sessions judge had openly made comments in the open court on February 6 that he would not subject the seer to any medical test. The victim, in her petition, had said that the law is well settled that cases of atrocities on women shall, as far as practicable, be tried by a woman presiding officer. “Strangely, it is found that though there were several woman presiding officers in Bengaluru, the present learned sessions judge was notified to try the cases of atrocities of women,” she stated in her petition.

HC to BDA: Pay farmers

The High Court has directed the State government, Bangalore Development Authority and Mysuru Urban Development Authority to pay compensation to farmers as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 

While pronouncing orders on a batch of petitions seeking directions to compensate for land acquired by the government, Justice Anand Byrareddy ordered application of section 24(2) of the Act squarely.The bench, in the order, stated that non-payment of compensation would not render the acquisition proceedings as bad in law as the petitioner (farmers) would be entitled to interest on the compensation. 

Several petitions were filed in the High Court with regard to delay in payment, non-payment and less payment of compensation to farmers whose land was acquired by the state government.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
Comments (+)