Supreme Court Monthly Digest of Cases (September 2016)

Contempt of CourtsIn Gyani Chand vs. State of A.P, three-judge Bench comprising Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice L. Nageswara Rao also observed that it would not be fair on the part of a court to give a direction to do something which is impossible and if a person has been asked to do something which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held guilty of contempt.Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act : In Vilas V. Sanghai vs. Sumermal Mishrimal Bafna & Anr., it has been held that, if the criminal contempt was of a subordinate Court, the High Court could have taken action only on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a Motion made by the Advocate General and not in pursuance of an application submitted by any other person, that too without obtaining consent of Advocate General.Contract ActThe Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/S Indusind Bank Ltd., held that the 1997 amendment to the Indian Contract Act, which made certain agreements covered by Section 28(b) of the Act void, operates prospectively.Copyrights ActThe Supreme Court in International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) vs. Aditya Pandey & Ors, upheld a Delhi High Court order which had held that event organisers need not secure a licence from lyricists and musicians for playing the song in public even after it has paid for the broadcasting of the song to sound recording company. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court order in view of the fact that the suit was filed in 2006, before introduction Sub-Section 10 of Section 19 of the Copyright Act.Court Fees ActIn Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., the Apex Court observed that providing social security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of any legal system which has to be effective, efficient and robust to enable it to provide necessary service to the consumers of justice. The Court has upheld levy of additional court fee in respect of each appeal or revision before the tribunals and appellate authorities by or under special or local law, at the rate of 0.5% of the amount involved in the dispute in cases, where it is capable of valuation, and at the rate of ₹50 in other.Criminal Procedure CodeIn Youth Bar Association of India Vs Union of India and Others, the Apex Court issued 10 important Guidelines on First Information Report. the copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within 24 hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievancesSection 301 & 302 CrPC- in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors, it has been held that Section 302 CrPC confers power on a magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently. The court also made it clear that the said provision applies to every stage, including the stage of framing charge.Section 482/397 CrPC- In Prabhu Chawla vs State of Rajasthan, it has been clarified that the availability of remedy under Section 397 CrPC would not make a petition under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable.Section 197-CrPC-A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Narayana Swamy vs. State of Karnataka held that a Magistrate cannot order further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction.In State of UP vs. Chandra, the Court held that while examining an appeal filed against the finding of acquittal of the accused on the charge framed against him, the high court is required to consider the case on merits and pass a reasoned order.Section 202(1) – In Arun Purie vs. JayakumarHiremath, the Bench observed that from the materials on record, it appears that the accused appellants in the present appeals have and maintain residence beyond the local jurisdiction of the trial court. The Bench held that under the provisions of Section 202(1) CrPC, it was, therefore, mandatory for the learned magistrate to hold an inquiry either by himself or direct an investigation by the police prior to the issuance of process.Evidence ActSection 157: In SPS Rathore vs. CBI and others, the Court also held that, for the purpose of Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, to make a person an authority legally competent to investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having authority which flows from a statute. It is sufficient that such person was authorised legally by the state government to investigate the matter.About Handwriting expert evidence, Supreme Court said that, courts ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest of Cases (September 2016)

Ashok KM

Tags