Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up March 2022

Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds: Supreme CourtCase Title: Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam | SLP 2054-2055/2022 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227 The Supreme Court observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said. Not Safe To Convict A Person For Murder Solely On Basis Of Recovery Of Stolen Article : Supreme Court Case Title: Tulesh Kumar Sahu v State of Chattisgarh| Criminal Appeal No(s). 753/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228 The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a person for the offence of murder, after noting that the only evidence which linked him to the offence was the alleged recovery of stolen article from him. A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha referred to the precedents which held that merely on the basis of recovery of article, it may not be safe to sustain a conviction for murder.Complete Absence Of Motive In A Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence Weighs In Favour Of Accused : Supreme Court Case Name: Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)| Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229 The Supreme Court has held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. "In a case based on substantial (circumstantial) evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused," bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha observed.Section 173 CrPC - Magistrate Should Consider Initial Report & Supplementary Report Conjointly To Decide Whether To Proceed Against Accused : Supreme Court Case Title: Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others v. Joseph Joseph and Others| Criminal Appeal No 256 of 2022 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230 The Supreme Court has observed that a Judicial Magistrate should consider both the initial final report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC and the supplementary report submitted under Section 173(8) before deciding whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant made the observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated March 3, 2021."Causes Great Inconvenience" : Supreme Court Criticizes Last Moment Filing Of Additional Documents In SLPs Case Title: Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Mitrajyoti Deka | SLP 2074-2075/2022 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231 The Supreme Court, in an order passed last month, criticized last moment filing of additional documents in Special Leave Petitions. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period : Supreme Court Case Title: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. | SLP (C) 3008 of 2022 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.Implement Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan Before Permitting Any Mining Activity In Eco-Sensitive Zone: Supreme Court Directs Odisha Govt. Case Title: Binay Kumar Dalei vs State of Odisha | CA 1627-1628 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233 The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone. In this case, the National Green Tribunal had directed that mining activity shall not be permitted...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up March 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags