Human teeth not a ‘dangerous weapon’, SC restores ₹10 crore fraud trial to protect foreign investment, and Waqf Amendment Act challenge set for April 16.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (10 APRIL 2025)
HUMAN TEETH NOT ‘DANGEROUS WEAPON’ UNDER IPC: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Name: Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court ruled that human teeth do not qualify as a “dangerous weapon” under IPC Section 324. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Shakeel Ahmed (2004), the Court quashed charges against the Solankar family, stating minor bite injuries do not amount to hurt caused by dangerous weapons.
Legal Provision
- Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
- Section 326, IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.
- Section 323, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 504 & 506, IPC: Intentional insult and criminal intimidation.
- Section 34, IPC: Common intention.
- Shakeel Ahmed vs. State (2004 SC ruling): Teeth are not considered a deadly weapon.
- Interpretation principle: When a higher charge (Sec 326) rules that a teeth not a weapon, it applies to a lesser charge (Sec 324) too.
Source: Bombay High Court
LAW HAS TO PROTECT INVESTMENTS OF FOREIGN INVESTORS: SUPREME COURT
Case Name: Daechang Seat Automotive Ltd vs. Moon June Seok & Ors
The Supreme Court revived criminal proceedings against Moon June Seok, former CFO of Daechang Seat Automotive, stressing the rule of law must protect foreign investments. The Court overruled the Karnataka High Court’s quashing of charges, citing prima facie material pointing to Seok’s role in an alleged ₹10 crore financial fraud.
Legal Provision
- Criminal conspiracy & financial fraud: Charges based on misappropriation of ₹10 crore under the guise of GST payments.
- Presumption of innocence: Court upheld the right of the accused to a fair trial under “innocent till proven guilty.”
- Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136: Restored proceedings set aside by Karnataka High Court.
- High Court ruling overturned: Due to Seok’s own statements and circumstantial evidence of possible involvement.
- Investment protection principle: Rule of law must safeguard the interests of foreign companies investing in India.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR CHALLENGE TO WAQF AMENDMENT ACT ON APRIL 16
Case Name: Asaduddin Owaisi & Ors vs. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 269/2025
A three-judge bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna will hear ten petitions, including one by MP Asaduddin Owaisi, challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The law introduces sweeping changes to waqf property regulation and governance, removing key provisions and adding non-Muslim representation in the Waqf Council.
Legal Provision
- Waqf Act, 1995: Governs waqf property administration under Islamic law.
- Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Renames law, limits waqf declaration rights to Muslims of 5+ years’ practice.
- End of ‘waqf by user’: Removes implied waqf status via prolonged religious use.
- Council restructuring: Adds non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and mandates Muslim representation with a women’s quota.
- Audit provision: Shifts audit power from the state to the central government, enabling CAG review.
- Challenge in SC: Questions constitutional validity, minority rights, and centralization of waqf governance.
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (09 APRIL 2025)
