Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 12 to April 18, 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Private Vehicle Is Not A "Public Place" As Explained In Section 43 NDPS Act: Supreme CourtCase: Boota Singh Vs State Of Haryana [CrA 421 OF 2021]Citation : LL 2021 SC 218The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bench also observed that total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible though its rigor may get lessened in certain situations.In this case, recovery was effected from the accused while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place. While upholding the conviction of the accused, the High Court held that the case of accused would be covered by Section 43 of NDPS Act and not by Section 42. Section 42 deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation while Section 43 with power of seizure and arrest in public place."The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS Act.", the bench observed to hold that it was Section 42 which is applicable in this case. 2. High Courts Shall Not Pass Order Of 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive Steps' While Dismissing/Disposing Petition U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme CourtCase: M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [CrA 330 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 211The High Court while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India., shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court held.The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court.Followed by this observation, the court issued various guidelines explaining when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of "no coercive steps" and/or not to arrest the accused either pending investigation by the police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court.3. Breath Analysis Or Blood Test Not Necessary For Insurer To Reject Claim On Ground Of Drunken Driving : Supreme CourtTitle : IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd Citation : LL 2021 SC 209A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph held that a breath analyzer test or blood test as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is not necessary for an insurer to repudiate an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving.The Court held that if the insurance company is able to establish from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, it will not be deprived of its right to exclude the policy benefit merely on the ground that the scientific tests for alcohol presence were not carried out."...in cases, where there is no scientific material, in the form of test results available, as in the case before us, it may not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion. The totality of the circumstances obtaining in a case, must be considered", the Court observed in the case IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd. 4. 2019 Amendment To Section 31 IBC Has Retrospective Operation: Supreme CourtCase: Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited Vs.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited [ CA 8129 OF 2019] Citation: LL 2021 SC 212The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy held that 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has retrospective operation. The Court observed that the amendment is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come into effect.Regarding the retrospectivity of Section 31, the bench observed that the word "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 12 to April 18, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags