SUPREME COURT: PROPERTY SOLD LESS THAN MARKET RATE IS CHEATING NATION

With wide ramification for the policy of liberalisation being followed by the government, the Supreme Court has ruled that if government sells country�s assets to private persons or players at a price lesser than their market value, such action amounts to cheating the country.

A bench, comprising Justices Lokeshwar Singh Panta (since retd) and B Sudarshan Reddy, who set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Land Allotment dispute noted "it is well said a struggle to get for the state the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of state owned natural assets to the private sector.

Whenever the government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated; their is simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets at a discount.

GIRLFRIEND IS NOT RELATIVE, CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR DOWRY: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has ruled that a girlfriend or a concubine is not a relative and therefore cannot be prosecuted for an offence under section 498 (A) of the IPC (cruelty for dowry).

A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and R M Lodha, while allowing the appeal of U Suvetha, in the case of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, the alleged girlfriend of Tutus Gunaraj the husband of the complainant, in its judgment noted," By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be relative. "The word relative brings within its purview a status. v Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise."

Main question before the Hon'ble Bench was to whether the friend' would be a `relative of husband of a woman' in terms of Section of the Indian Penal Code.


Suvetha had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Madras High court August 1, 2008, which dismissed her petition for discharging the case. Justice Sinha, while writing the 18-page judgment for the bench, however, noted," It is not the case of the first informant that the appellant had any role to play with regard to demand of dowry.

Ingredients of 498A of the Indian Penal Code are :-
a). The woman must be married
b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."

The word cruelty having being defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning, can be attributed there too.Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion , no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a `relative'. The word `relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

The apex court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and concluded by saying, "We would assume that the term husband would bring within its fold a person who is said to have contracted a marriage with another woman and subjected her to cruelty."