Supreme Court Judgments Section 311 CrPC Application Cannot Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground That It Will Lead To Filling In Loop Holes Of Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Case details: Varsha Garg vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662 | CrA 1021 of 2022 The Supreme Court observed that an application under Section 311 CrPC cannot be dismissed merely on the...
Supreme Court Judgments
Case details: Varsha Garg vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662 | CrA 1021 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an application under Section 311 CrPC cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it will lead to filling in the loopholes of the prosecution's case. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case and is not constrained by the closure of evidence, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Conviction Solely On The Basis Of Extra Judicial Confession Cannot Be Sustained: Supreme Court
Case details: State of Rajasthan vs Kistoora Ram | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663 | CrA 2119 OF 2010
Extra judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra judicial confession could not be sustained, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a High Court judgment which acquitted a murder accused.
Case Title: Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664 | CrA 822 OF 2018
In a judgment delivered last week , the Supreme Court took into account the possibility of the accused being short tempered to modify his conviction to Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC.
"It cannot be disputed that how a person responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a particular person. A hot tempered person may react differently as compared to a cool headed person", the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs Union Of India| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court turned down a plea seeking modification of the tenure of members of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, from 3 years to 5 years. It refused to extend tenure for the concerned 23 members, but clarified that while making appointments in future the Central Government would be bound by Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prescribes the tenure of the members of NCLT to be 5 years. The Apex Court was of the view that an administrative notification for appointment ought to be consistent with the statute.
Case Details: Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade vs ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 | SLP (C) 21077 of 2019
The Supreme Court observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation.
Such an application has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
Case details: Budhiyarin Bai vs State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 667 | CrA 1218 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reduced sentence awarded to an aged and illiterate lady who was found guilty of possession of the commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja'(Cannabis).
Budhiyarin Bai along with her two children were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for having joint possession of the commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja'(Cannabis) of 05 quintal and 21.5 kilogram. Two others were also charged under Section 27A of the NDPS Act that they delivered the illegal cannabis. The Trial Court convicted Budhiyarin Bai and acquitted other four persons of all the charges. She was sentenced for 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The prosecution did not challenge the acquittal of four co-accused. The appeal filed by Budhiyarin Bai was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
While considering her appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar noted that neither the trial Court nor the High Court has considered that the lady was illiterate and a senior citizen. She was indeed residing but completely unknown to law, with two grown up children, with no previous background of being involved in any kind of criminal cases at any point of time in her lifetime, it noted.
Case Title: Tulshi Choudhary vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) & Ors. | (SLP(C) No. 8443 OF 2018)| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668
The Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to the correction of date of birth of an employee is not ousted by the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The Court stated that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted if it is a matter relating to the enforcement of a right under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case details: J. Vedhasingh vs R.M. Govindan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669 | SLP (Crl) 2864 OF 2019
Whether on a similar set of allegations of fact, the accused can be tried for an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act which is special enactment and also for offences under Indian Penal Code unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal? The Supreme Court has referred this question to a larger bench.
The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari was considering a special leave petition filed against the Madras High Court judgment which quashed the proceedings under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pertaining to the same cause of action and on the same facts and grounds are pending, prior to the registration of the proceedings under Section 420 IPC.
Suspicion However Strong Cannot Be Ground For Conviction : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused
Case details: Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670 | CrA 25 OF 2012
An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is, the Supreme Court reiterated while acquitting an accused in a murder case.
In this case, the accused Ram Niwas was accused of murder of one Dalip Singh. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC which was confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Case details: Bank Of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671 | CA 5240 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the application against measures to recover secured debts, has to be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within forty five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.
Case details: Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd vs Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 | CA 2393 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that continuity of service can be directed in cases where the retrenchment was not bona fide.
Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd 'retrenched' the services of fifty-five employees, on the grounds that it had closed its business. Retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was also offered. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, the Government referred the dispute regarding a demand of the workmen for reinstatement of fifty-five drivers with continuity of service and full back wages. The orders of termination were set aside by the Tribunal and the workmen were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 75% back wages, save eight employees who admitted to gainful employment post retrenchment. The Bombay High Court upheld this order of the Tribunal.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench agreed with the view of the Tribunal that the method and manner by which the workmen were retrenched clearly demonstrates that it is virtually a closure and that he entirety of business is not lost due to the strike and the retrenchment seems to have been imposed as retribution against the workmen for going on a strike.
Case details: Suneel Kumar vs State of UP | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675 | CA 5038 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that "suitable employment" for compassionate appointment must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed while interpreting Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Case Title : XYZ versus State of Madhya Pradesh|2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676
Reiterating the importance of the Courts dealing with the victims of sexual crimes in a sensitive manner, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the trial courts to avoid agony and harassment for women who file complaints of sexual harassment.
The Court directed that in-camera trials should be allowed in all cases relating to sexual harassment. As per Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in-camera trials are mandated only in rape cases. This ambit has been expanded by the Court.
Further, the Court issued directions to ensure that the cross-examination of the victim is carried out in a sensitive and respectful manner.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court, on Monday, adjourned the plea pertaining to the issue whether partial payment of fees without submission of enrolment forms, undertakings and affidavits will amount to admission and joining of a medical college.
The petition was filed by a candidate who had applied in the NEET UG Counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and was allotted a deemed/paid quota seat in DY Patil (Deemed) University, Navi Mumbai. From the records it appeared that the petitioner had joined the institution. However, she had only made a partial payment and was yet to submit the enrolment form, mandatory undertakings and affidavits.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, granted interim protection from arrest to Zee News Producer, Narinder Singh in FIRs registered in relation to the airing of a fabricated video of Rahul Gandhi's speech. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Singh apprised a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna that three FIRs have been filed against him - one in Jaipur, Rajasthan; the other in Raipur, Chhattisgarh; and the third one by Zee News in NOIDA, UP. In the complaint filed by the company it has sought investigation and appropriate action against Singh. Justice Chandrachud stated that the Bench would extend the same protections granted to the Zee News Editor, Rajnish Ahuja on Friday (5th Aug).
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain plea seeking quashing of the compulsory bond conditions, imposed by the State of Maharashtra on the petitioners, while taking admissions in the medical under-graduate MBBS course in the year 2011 and 2013, in the All-India Quota seats, based on merit secured in All India Preliminary Medical Test (AIPMT).
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay NEET-PG 2022 Counselling In Plea Alleging Discrepancies In Test Scores
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to stay the Counseling process for NEET-PG 2022 in a plea challenging the decision of National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE) to not release the answer key and question paper for NEET-PG 2022. The petitioner alleged serious discrepancies in the scores of the candidates who appeared for the test.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday urged the Patna High Court to drop all disciplinary proceedings initiated against a suspended Additional Sessions Judge from Bihar for deciding POCSO cases within days.
On Monday, Supreme Court Judge, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud expressed displeasure upon being apprised that the Supreme Court Registry has deleted a matter, that was listed, from the Monday Board.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection to Times Now anchor Navika Kumar from the multiple FIRs/complaints registered over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed in a channel show and future FIRs/complaints which may be registered on the same issue.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday orally observed that it cannot entertain a prayer to identify religious and linguistic minorities at district level, as it is contrary to the precedents which hold that such identification must be carried out at State level. A Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhat was considering a writ petition filed by Devkindan Thakur challenging a 1993 notification of the Central Government declaring Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsi and Jain as minorities at the national level and seeking directions to identify minorities at district-level.
A Plea has been moved before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the appointment of a committee/commission headed by a judge of the high court or supreme court (present/retired) to study the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi campus.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Wednesday did not allow senior advocates to mention matters for urgent listing and said that it is better the mentionings are made by Advocates-on-Record.
"No question of allowing seniors to mention", Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail on medical grounds to 84-year old P Varavara Rao, who has been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon case for alleged links with banned Maoist organization.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the order in the Special Leave Petition filed by Rao challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to grant him permanent bail on medical grounds.
The bench took into account Rao's age, his medical conditions and also the two and half year period of actual custody spent by him. The bench also noted that trial is yet to begin in the case and even charges have not been framed although a chargesheet has been filed.
Also Read: Varavara Rao's Acts Were Against The State, Not Entitled To Bail : NIA To Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) Principal Bench at New Delhi in September 2020 which held Advocate Mahmood Pracha guilty of contempt of court for intemperate behaviour on the ground that no trial was conducted by the CAT.
The CAT had convicted Pracha for contempt of court but let him off with a warning. It had also directed that the order must be forwarded to the Bar Council of India and the Delhi State Bar Council for disciplinary action.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred all FIRs registered against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma in different parts of the country over her remarks on Prophet Mohammed to the Delhi Police. The order will extend to any FIR or complaint which may be registered against her in future with respect to the comments made on the channel debate aired by "Times Now" on May 26.
The Court also granted her liberty to approach the Delhi High Court for seeking the relief of quashing the FIRs, opining that a part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala also turned down a proposal made by the State of West Bengal through Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for a joint Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter under the monitoring of the Court. The bench said that the FIR in Delhi has been registered by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police, which is a specialized agency, and suggested that the investigation is carried out by IFSO. The bench also said that the IFSO will be at liberty to collect information from other States for the purposes of the investigation.
The bench also extended the interim protection that it had granted to Sharma on July 19 till the completion of the Investigation.
Supreme Court Adjourns Jamiat Pleas Challenging "Bulldozer" Actions For September 7
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots for September 7, 2022.
The adjournment was sought by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha due to Senior Advocate PV Surendranath's ill health. The bench also granted Senior Advocate CU Singh time to file rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the respondents.
Freebies Issue : Supreme Court Says Balance Needed Between Economy & Welfare Of People
While considering a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday stressed on creating a balance between the welfare of the State and the economic strain on the public exchequer. .
"Economy losing money and the welfare of people, both have to be balanced. That's why this debate and there must be someone to put thoughts to the vision," the CJI said.
The bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari also refused to look into the aspect of de-registering political parties for distributing freebies.
"I don't want to look into the aspect of de-registration. That's an anti-democratic thing. We are a democracy after all," the CJI said.
The Top Court also said that another question which required to be considered was the extent to which the Court could interfere in the issue.
Also Read: Freebies Issue : Election Commission Declines To Be Part Of Expert Panel Proposed By Supreme Court
EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Appeals Of EPFO
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014.
A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved judgment after 6-days of hearing.
In the matter related to the elections of All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that it will not hesitate from interfering if attempts are made to undermine the hosting of the 2022 FIFA Under-17 Women's World Cup by India.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the Committee of Administrators (CoA) of the AIFF alleging that the ousted AIFF President Praful Patel has been trying to undermine the conduct of tournament. It may be noted that FIFA has given an ultimatum to the AIFF to elect a democratically elected governing body and the Supreme Court had last week passed directions for the holding of elections.
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case Convict Nalini Moves Supreme Court Seeking Premature Release
S. Nalini, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has moved the Supreme Court seeking premature release. She has impugned the order of the Madras High Court, by which her plea for early release had been dismissed.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the court proceedings in the multiple cases registered against Aumkareshwar Thakur, the alleged creator of the "Sulli Deals" apps which was used to do an online auction of several Muslim women.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued notice to the Governments of Delhi, UP and Maharashtra on the writ petition filed by Thakur seeking the clubbing of the multiple FIRs.
During the hearing, the bench orally observed that each victim woman was an aggrieved person who can file complaints separately.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by financial journalist and Managing Editor of Money Life Sucheta Dalal concerning unclaimed funds of investors and depositors which are taken by various regulators and are not accessible to the rightful legal heirs of such funds. A bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari orally observed that "it is a very important issue" and issued notice on the PIL. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a petition preferred by the State of Kerala against Kerala High Court's order of discharging alleged Maoist leader Roopesh accused of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Provision Allowing Use Of EVMs
The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act (Act), which pertains to the use of EVMs in elections. Noting that there is no merit in the present Public Interest Litigation, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh dismissed it.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked Jharkhand Chief Minister, Hemant Soren, to submit a copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court which sought an independent probe against him for alleged money laundering through shell companies. The direction was passed by a Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat while hearing the petitions moved by the State of Jharkhand and Soren challenging the High Court's order accepting the maintainability of the said plea.
Model Builder-Buyer Agreement: Supreme Court Asks Amicus & Centre To Provide A Roadmap
In a plea seeking direction to the Centre to frame model builder-buyer and agent-buyer agreements to ensure uniformity, the Supreme Court, on Friday, asked the Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (Ministry), to provide a roadmap to the future, so that it can pass some comprehensive directions. The Apex Court noted that the said road map would assist it in formulating a feasible model agreement for sale, which would also accommodate the individual needs and exigencies of respective States/Union Territories.
Unnao Rape Survivor Moves Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Case Against Her To Delhi
The Unnao rape survivor has moved a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of a counter case filed against her by the father of Shubham Singh, one of the accused men, facing trial in New Delhi for the gang rape of the minor petitioner. As an interim relief, the petitioner has sought a stay on a non-bailable warrant issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against her. The FIR was filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as a counter blast against the minor petitioner, her uncle and her mother. The petition has highlighted the "clear, grave and real risk" to the personal safety and life of the petitioner if she is forced to appear before and face a criminal trial in Unnao district, where she was repeatedly raped and gang raped in 2017 by politically powerful men.
In a plea filed by the State of Tripura, which assails an interim order passed by the Tripura High Court directing the State Government to enhance the salary of the staff of the High Court as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, at the request of State's Counsel, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Singh, the Supreme Court, on Friday, adjourned the hearing.
Supreme Court Directs State Governments To Inform If State Haj Committees Have Been Constituted
The Supreme Court on Friday(August 12) directed State governments to inform the Court, by way of an affidavit, if Hajj committees are constituted in their respective states. The court has also directed states to specify the names of the committee members of the Hajj Committees thus constituted.
Whether an accused added under Section 319 CrPC can seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC? The Supreme Court agreed to examine this issue raised in a special leave petition.
Appearing for a petitioner in a special leave petition, Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu had contended that this issue was answered in the negative in Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015) 9 SCC 244 and that the said view is not a correct view in law.
"We are, therefore, of the view that it will be appropriate to examine the correctness of the said proposition", the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in this matter.
Attorney General for India KK Venugopal has written another letter to the Supreme Court in the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal matter, reiterating his complaint that there has been an attempt to ensure that he does not appear in the matter.
Last week, AG had informed the Chief Justice of India that Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs changed his Advocate-on-Record and other lawyers who had been appearing for the Board till then. Taking strong exception to such a move, the AG had said that contempt of court action should be taken against the Board as the last minute change of counsel would amount to interference with the administration of justice. Now, ahead of the hearing tomorrow, AG Venugopal has written to to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court seeking an adjournment in the case saying that he is yet to recover from COVID-19 after effects. The AG also said that the arguments on the legal issues in the matter be heard only after the contemnors "purged themselves of the contempt".