Important Supreme Court Judgments – September, 2020

The Supreme Court of India has pronounced numerous judgments in the month of September, 2020. In this write-up, the important pronouncements are briefly discussed. Subed Ali and Others v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2012 (Decided on30/09/2020). A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, held that it is not necessary that an accused must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault to convict him on the ground of common intention. It was observed that common intention consists of several persons acting in unison to achieve a common purpose, though their roles may be different. The role may be active or passive is irrelevant, once common intention is established. The Bench observed that there can hardly be any direct evidence of common intention and it is more a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of a case based on the cumulative assessment of the nature of evidence available against the participants. Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana and Others, Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 456 of2019 (Decided on 30/09/2020). A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian, held that that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an offence or offender as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence. It was held that if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same. It was observed that the words "tries an offence" are more appropriate than the words "tries an offender" in section 461(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by section 462 and hence section 461, could include the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void. It was further observed that the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender but Section 461(l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do. Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 (Decided on28/09/2020). A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, acquitted a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, and held that under Section 90 IPC, a consent given under a misconception of fact is no consent in the eyes of law but the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a period of four years. The Bench observed that it hardly needs any elaboration that the consent by the appellant was a conscious and informed choice made by her after due deliberation, it being spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious positive action not to protest. The prosecutrix in her letters to the appellant also mentions that there would often be quarrels at her home with her family members with regard to the relationship and beatings given to her. The Court concluded that the consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her because of her deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love. Union of India and Others v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Another, Civil Appeal No.3249 of 2020 (Decided on 23/09/2020). A Bench of Justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph, held that with the change in the manner of publishing gazette notifications from analog to digital, the precise time when the gazette is published in the electronic mode assumes significance. It was also held that the Schedule to an act is a part of the act and therefore an amendment to the Schedule by virtue of a notification is an amendment to the Act itself. Delegated legislation is legislative in character but if it is to be a Central Act within the meaning of Section 5 of General Clauses Act, it must be made by the legislature. Delegated legislation which is called administrative legislation in England, is exercise of legislative power by the executive. The author of the legislative effort is the executive and in the scheme of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the 2018 Regulations, the time at which the notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is published would have relevance. Governmentof India v. Vedanta Limited...

Important Supreme Court Judgments – September, 2020

Muneeb Rashid Malik

Tags