Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [April 21 to 30]

Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 2024 Part 3 (Apr 21 - 30, 2024)Bail Cancellation of Bail – Grounds – Misuse of liberty – Participation in protest and expression of strong views – Non-violation of bail conditions. A. Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai @ Duraimurugan v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 313Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Failure to implead necessary parties – Court must apply its mind whether the parties who are likely to be affected by an order have been impleaded to the proceedings. On failure to implead them, court must decline to pass an order of disposing of the petition in terms of the “Minutes of Order”. Only if the Court is satisfied that an order in terms of the “Minutes of the Order” would be legal, the Court can pass an order in terms of the “Minutes of Order”. An order passed without hearing the necessary parties would be illegal. While passing an order in terms of the “Minutes of Order”, the Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind. Held, on failure to implead the necessary parties, the High Court will be well within its power to dismiss the Writ Petition and pass an order of restoration of status quo. (Para 17, 19 & 22) Ajay Ishwar Ghute v. Meher K. Patel, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 335“Minutes of Order” – Object is to assist the Court – An order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” tendered on record by the advocates representing the parties to the proceedings is not a consent order. It is an order in invitum for all purposes. Before tendering the “Minutes of Order” to the Court, the advocates must consider whether an order, if passed by the Court in terms of the “Minutes of Order,” would be lawful. After “Minutes of Order” is tendered before the Court, it is the duty of the Court to decide whether an order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” would be lawful. (Para 19) Ajay Ishwar Ghute v. Meher K. Patel, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 335Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 – Review Jurisdiction – To declare reserved forest land as private land – Review of earlier order where it had given a clear finding that the title over the reserved forest land wasn't proved by the private person. Held, the High Court showed utmost interest and benevolence in allowing the review by setting aside the well merited judgment in the appeal by replacing its views in all material aspects. The High Court which is expected to act within the statutory limitation went beyond and graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title. The High Court could not interfere by placing reliance upon evidence produced after the decree which states that the land is forest land which has become part of reserved forest. (Para 54 & 56) State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 314Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 – Scope of review - Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in a re-hearing. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident and an omission so glaring that it requires interference in the form of a review. There is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing or of adjudication for a second time. (Para 20) State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 314Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Object and purpose of police investigation – Includes the need to ensure transparent and free investigation to ascertain the facts, examine whether or not an offence is committed, identify the offender if an offence is committed, and to lay before the court the evidence which has been collected, the truth and correctness of which is thereupon decided by the court. (Para 26) Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337Issue of non-bailable warrant – Held, non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State. Nonbailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. (Para 46) Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337Section 173(2) – Contents of chargesheet – The need to provide lead details of the offence in the chargesheet is mandatory as it is in accord with paragraph 122 of the police regulations. The investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what the material evidence available. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. Substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in the chargesheet are a key resource for a Magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for taking cognisance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges etc. (Para 20, 31 & 31) Sharif Ahmed ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [April 21 to 30]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags