Supreme Court Quarterly Digests 2022 - CRIMINAL LAW (Jan-March)

Anticipatory Bail Applications - When an application for anticipatory bail accompanied by an application for ad -interim relief is listed before the court, it should decide the same one way or the other, so far as the ad -interim prayer or should have taken up for consideration after giving some reasonable time to the State. Even if admitted, the court should list the same for final disposal on a specific date - Not giving any specific date is not a procedure which can be countenanced. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Anticipatory bail granted to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post -poll violence. Sk. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - Section 125 not only recognizes that an element of discretion has been vested in the designated officer, but it also postulates that the designated officer should have decided that the proceedings be instituted by the court -martial in which event the court -martial would take place. (Para 44) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - The criminal court will have jurisdiction to try a case against an army personnel if the Commanding Officer does not exercise the discretion under Section 125 of the Army Act to initiate court -martial with respect to the offence - If the designated officer does not exercise this discretion to institute proceedings before a court -martial, the Army Act would not interdict the exercise of jurisdiction by the ordinary criminal court. (Para 30) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 70 - The ingredients of Section 70 are: (i) The offence must be committed by a person subject to the Army Act; (ii) The offence must be committed against a person who is not subject to military, naval or air force law; and (iii) The offence must be of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rape. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Law - Appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal order of conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation - Allowed - AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Bail - While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85

Blacklisting - "Debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission. It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case - "Debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. (Para 8.7 and 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Guidelines issued by Odisha Government that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of ten years for multiple offences - Disapproved - Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, we rest the matter there and leave it to the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting. (Para 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Show cause notice was issued upon the contractor by which the contractor was called upon to show cause why he be not blacklisted; the show cause notice was replied to by the contractor and thereafter, after considering the material on record and the reply submitted by the contractor and having found the serious lapses which led to a serious incident in which one person died and eleven others were injured, the State Government took a conscious decision to blacklist the contractor. Therefore, it cannot be said the order blacklisting the contractor was in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 8.5) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant -With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. (Para 27 -29) Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - Filing of a charge -sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 CrPC - An accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. (Para 10) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - There is no additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing of the charge -sheet within the statutory period. (Para 15) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - The accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Evidentiary Value of a Final Report - Final Report, is nothing but a piece of evidence. It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him. He takes note of the offence and thereafter, conducts an investigation to identify the offender, the truth of which can only be decided by the court - The final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. (Para 25, 37) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The evolution of legal position and norms for dealing with the question of sentencing and the connotations of 'special reasons' for awarding death sentence discussed - Court has found it justified to have capital punishment on the statute to serve as deterrent as also in due response to the society's call for appropriate punishment in appropriate cases but at the same time, the principles of penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal causes and collective conscience of society. This has led to the evolution of 'rarest of rare test' and then, its appropriate operation with reference to 'crime test' and 'criminal test'. The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid -way approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature. (Para 40) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - When the accused is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated - His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation. (Para 43.1) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 - 439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 - 439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person - When a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - In the case of murder (under Section 302 IPC), it is expected that at least some reason would be given while reversing the order of the Trial Court, which had rejected the bail application by a reasoned order. (Para 4) Sabir v Bhoora @ Nadeem, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Complainants are defendants in civil suits with regard to the same transactions - Complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement - Ulterior motive of harassing the accused - Continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. (Para 22, 30) Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Case of fabrication of documents can't be quashed saying there is no revenue loss to state. Missu Naseem v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 132

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR. (Para 19) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. (Para 17) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Though the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. (Para 7) Registrar General v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 17 - The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection. On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed. They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes. (Para 24) Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6), 161, 207 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 - Even for protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) CrPC read with Section 44 UAPA, the accused can exercise their right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of their redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not disclosed. Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 437 and 439 - Bail Considerations - Gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge sheet has to be considered. (Para 9.3) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 25A - Role of Director of Prosecution in the administration of Justice - The post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take prompt decision. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial. He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter VIII - Powers of the Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens - Procedure explained. (Para 7) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 122 - Appeal against High Court judgment which affirmed order passed against appellant by an Executive Magistrate under Section 122(1)(b) CrPC - Dismissed - The order passed by is after following the procedure, so prescribed and affording due opportunity to the appellant. Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - There can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences - Once an FIR has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR - Barring situations in which a counter case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation". (Para 12) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of. (Para 11) Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 188 - The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India - When a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country, going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts - If the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. (Para 13, 14) Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the order passed by Magistrate summoning the appellant who was not named in police report - Dismissed - The name of the accused/appellant had transpired from the statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC - No error in the order of the Magistrate. Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose. (Para 21) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even in respect of a person whose name may not feature at all in the police report, whether as accused or in column (2) thereof if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are materials on record which would reveal prima facie his involvement in the offence. (Para 20) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - It is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) - Accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on him. A bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is necessary to provide an effective opportunity to the accused. Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on the question of death sentence shall be provided to the accused by the Trial Court. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed death sentence awarded to the appellant accused of rape and murder of 11 year old girl - Partly allowed - Commuted death sentence- Sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission- No evidence has been placed by the prosecution on record to show that there is no probability of rehabilitation and reformation of the Appellant and the question of an alternative option to death sentence is foreclosed. The Appellant had no criminal antecedents before the commission of crime for which he has been convicted. There is nothing adverse that has been reported against his conduct in jail - The Appellant was aged 25 years on the date of commission of the offence and belongs to a Scheduled Tribes community, eking his livelihood by doing manual labour. Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Appeal against the High court order which set aside the Trial Court order refusing to summon appellant under Section 319 CrPC - High Court even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which has been considered by the learned trial Judge. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Appeal against High Court order which recalled an order passed by it in a criminal case - Dismissed - This application for recall of the order was maintainable as it was an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Application for recall of the order maintainable when it is an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372 and 378 - The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right- The victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal-The victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. (Para 10.2) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372, 378 & 401 - No revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal- He/she shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - Reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned - With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced - If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal. (Para 7) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Approach to be adopted while deciding an appeal against acquittal by the trial court - Principles that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - Discussed. (Para 20-29) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 394 - Abatement of Criminal Appeal - Appellant died during pendency of appeal - The counsel, as an Amicus, cannot be treated as a near relative of the deceased appellant/convict - The application for continuance of the appeal having not been made within 30 days or even thereafter by any near relative, as per the provision of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., this appeal would abate. Yeruva Sayireddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction- If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial. (Para 9) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. (Para 11) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - Bail - High Court order granting bail to murder accused - Allowed - The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged. Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - Bail - Relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - While elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum - Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 17-19) Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Ordinarily, no such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested - When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that agency alone. We say no more. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Bail granted by the High Court in a murder case - Allowed - The High Court has granted bail to the ­accused by passing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the accused. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - The Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - When bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima ­facie case against the accused. (Para 29) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non­application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and 18 circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope of inherent power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings discussed. (Para 14-20) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - There being no bar to exercise of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 14) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When the dispute in question is purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Bail - Writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate granting bail - Judge granting bail and Addl. District Judge who refused to interfere with said order impleaded by name - Conduct of the petitioner deprecated - No reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition directly in this court. Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the relief(s) prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR ought not to have been filed - It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 72 and 161 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432, 433 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860; Section 45 and 53 - There can be imposition of life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath as a substitution of death sentence. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Constitution of India, 1950 - Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court order refusing to interfere with confiscation order passed by District Magistrate despite acquittal in connected criminal case under MP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act - Allowed - The order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A - The District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by the Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court - Summarized. (Para 30) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Principles governing interference in a criminal appeal by special leave. (Para 7) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - An accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Confiscation - By an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property - Therefore, it is necessary for the State to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. (Para 17) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Criminal Cases - Role of State - In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Cases - Where it is found that the accused are released on bail in serious offences, the State Government/legal department of State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision and challenge the order passed by the trial court and/or the High Court as the case may be. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Law - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC judgment convicting accused appellant under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4) and 506 of the IPC, and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act- Dismissed - The offences alleged against the appellant were rightly invoked and fully substantiated. Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment reversing conviction of accused in a murder case - Allowed - The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole - Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case - Conviction recorded by Trial Court restored. M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction of accused in a murder case - dismissed - The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Motive - Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else - Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11, 14) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Criminal Trial - Eye Witness - The evidence of eye -witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Criminal Trial - Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters' of the High Court of Delhi - The definition of "vulnerable witness" contained in Clause 3(a) expanded. (Para 5 (i)) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Criminal Trial - Long adjournments being given after the completion of the chief examination, only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time - The trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible - The trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses. (Para 39) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Criminal Trial - Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. (Para 10) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Appellant convicted under Section 376, 363, 366, 307, 354 and sentenced to life imprisonment sought modification of sentence- Sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment - Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years as on date - The ends of justice would be met by directing that instead and in place of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction under Section 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment. Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender - The principles of restorative justice find place within the Indian Constitution and severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. (Para 7, 8) Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - The approximate time of death before examination, as indicated in the post -mortem report, cannot be applied as something of mathematical precision. (Para 36) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Criminal Trial - The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - The evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable. The evidence is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses as he is the one who links and presents them before the court - Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when there are other incriminating evidence available on record. (Para 25) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Criminal Trial - The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt. (Para 46) Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - Unnecessarily weightage shall not be given to some minor contradictions - Deposition of injured eye witness has a greater reliability and credibility. (Para 12) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Vulnerable Witnesses - The fairness of the process of trial as well as the pursuit of substantive justice are determined in a significant measure by the manner in which statements of vulnerable witnesses are recorded - Creation of a barrier free environment where depositions can be recorded freely without constraining limitations, both physical and emotional - Directions issued. (Para 3-5) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Detention - In the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty bound to do so with utmost despatch - The time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu. S. Amutha v, Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction - In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. (Para 13) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of Acquittal - An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 10.4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Disciplinary Proceedings - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - The test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. Indian Overseas Bank v. Om Prakash Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Evidence Act - Section 106 - Last Seen Theory - When 'last seen' evidence is cogent and trustworthy which establishes that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused; and is coupled with the evidence of discovery of the dead body of deceased at a far away and lonely place on the information furnished by the accused, the burden is on the accused to explain his whereabouts after he was last seen with the deceased and to show if, and when, the deceased parted with his company as also the reason for his knowledge about the location of the dead body. (Para 31) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Evidence Act, 1872 - "Matters" - Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All evidence would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also add strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact - Matters do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - A mere non -examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it. (Para 31) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Chance Witness - A chance witness is the one who happens to be at the place of occurrence of an offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of course. In other words, he is not expected to be in the said place. A person walking on a street witnessing the commission of an offence can be a chance witness. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. This again is an aspect which is to be looked into in a given case by the court. (Para 26) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Classification of Evidence - Circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Definition of "Proved" - The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical influence. (Para 13) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence Act is an "Adjective Law" highlighting and aiding substantive law - It is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, though trappings of both could be felt. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Hostile Witness - Testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party -A witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion. (Para 21) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Related Witness - A related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness per se. One has to see the place of occurrence along with other circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the precincts of the deceased, the presence of his family members cannot be ruled out, as they assume the position of natural witnesses. When their evidence is clear, cogent and withstood the rigor of cross examination, it becomes sterling, not requiring further corroboration. A related witness would become an interested witness, only when he is desirous of implicating the accused in rendering a conviction, on purpose. (Para 28) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused - Burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused. (Para 15 - 16) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Definition of "Evidence" - Factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted, without corroboration: (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. State of U.P. v. Veerpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There can be a conviction solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration - If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration. State of U.P. v. Veerpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Section 33 is an exception to the general rule which mandates adequate facility for cross examining a witness. However, in a case where a witness after the completion of the chief examination and while subjecting him to a substantial and rigorous cross examination, did not choose to get into the witness box on purpose, it is for the court to utilize the said evidence appropriately. The issues over which the evidence is completed could be treated as such by the court and then proceed. Resultantly, the issues for which the cross examination is not over would make the entire examination as inadmissible. Ultimately, it is for the court to decide the aforesaid aspect . (Para 24) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it. (Para 17) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence produced, notwithstanding the classification, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. (Para 29) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case. (Para 18) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. (Para 20) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Appeal against Orissa High Court judgment which quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the disputed signatures was non-conclusive - Allowed. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person - The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Appellant Engineer accused of facilitating visit by two Chinese citizens who were on tourist visas to Rewa Solar Plant Project site - No indication or allegation that the appellant was aware and had knowledge that the Chinese citizens had traveled on tourist visas - Criminal proceedings quashed. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 14C - Abetment - Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment - The word 'abet' is an essential ingredient - 'Abet' means to aid, to encourage or countenance. An abetment of the offence occurs when a person instigates any person to do that offence or engages with another person(s) in doing that thing. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the accused cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. (Para 38) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Date of Birth certificate be obtained after filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act cannot be relied upon. (Para 9) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case - It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. (Para 15 -17) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 - Birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. (Para 37) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - The quantity of the neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with the actual content of the weight of the offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Karuna Shanker Puri, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer - Accused acquitted. (Para 9) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 67 - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Whether the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated ? Cannot give such an extended view. Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - Ascertainment of whether the act of payment is in good faith and without negligence is by examination of the circumstances in which payment is made. In other words, antecedent and present circumstances should not afford a reasonable ground for believing that the person to whom payment is made is not entitled to receive payment of the amount mentioned.9 While it would not be advisable or feasible to strait -jacket the circumstances, albeit value of the instrument, other facts that would raise doubts about the reliability and identity of the person entitled to receive payment and genuineness of the instrument in the payer's mind are relevant considerations. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - The requirement in Section 10 that the payment should be in both good faith and without negligence is cumulative. Thus, mere good faith is not sufficient. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(22) - Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act which defines 'good faith' as an act done honestly, whether done negligently or not, is not sufficient to hold that the payment made was 'payment in due course' under the NI Act. (Para 18) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Different principles apply for discharge from liability when the negotiable instrument is payable to bearer or has been indorsed in blank, in which case payment must be made in terms of Section 10, whereas when the negotiable instrument is payable to order, the maker, acceptor or endorser would be discharged from liability when payment is made to the 'holder' of the instrument. (Para 14) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 - Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) are negotiable instruments in terms of Section 13 of the NI Act - It cannot be said that the KVPs are simple bearer instruments payable to anyone who presents the same for encashment and discharge. (Para 12, 29) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790 - The employment of the terms "specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder" and such assertion about knowledge should be "said explicitly" as stated in A.C. Narayanan (supra) cannot be understood to mean that the assertion should be in any particular manner, much less only in the manner understood by the accused in the case. All that is necessary is to demonstrate before the learned Magistrate that the complaint filed is in the name of the "payee" and if the person who is prosecuting the complaint is different from the payee, the authorisation therefor and that the contents of the complaint are within his knowledge. What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straitjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and the manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case. The manner in which a complaint is drafted may vary from case to case and would also depend on the skills of the person drafting the same which by itself, cannot defeat a substantive right. However, what is necessary to be taken note of is as to whether the contents as available in the pleading would convey the meaning to the effect that the person who has filed the complaint, is stated to be authorized and claims to have knowledge of the same. In addition, the supporting documents which were available on the record by themselves demonstrate the fact that an authorized person, being a witness to the transaction and having knowledge of the case had instituted the complaint on behalf of the "payee" company and therefore, the requirement of Section 142 of N.I. Act was satisfied. (Para 17, 14) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Entertaining a petition under Section 482 to quash the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate would be unjustified when the issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - When a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized. Prima­facie, in such a situation the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient - Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. If at all, there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized or if it is to be demonstrated that the person who filed the complaint has no knowledge of the transaction and, as such that person could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 3 - 'Banker' includes any person acting as a banker and any post office savings bank. In terms of this section, a post office savings bank is a banker under the NI Act. (Para 11) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 8 - A holder means a person (i) entitled to possession of a promissory note, bill of exchange or a cheque, and (ii) entitled to sue the maker, acceptor or indorser of the instrument for the recovery of the amount due thereon in his name - The requirements of Section 8 are two -fold, and both requirements have to be satisfied. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 131 and 131A - The standard of care expected from a collecting banker does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination, yet disregarding circumstances about the cheque, which on the face of it gives rise to suspicion, may amount to negligence on the part of the collecting banker. Further, the question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the standpoint of the true owner towards whom the banker owes no contractual liability but statutory duty by these provisions - Allegations of negligence against the paying banker could provide no defence for the collecting banker who has not collected the amount in good faith and without negligence. (Para 20) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 15 and 16 - 'Indorsement', 'indorsee', 'indorser' and 'indorsement in blank' and 'in full' - Indorsement for the purpose of negotiation is made by the maker or holder of the negotiable instrument when he signs on the back or face of thereof, on a slip of paper annexed thereto or on a stamp paper for the purpose of negotiation. The person signing is called the indorser. If the instrument is signed by the indorser in his name only, it is an indorsement in blank. If the indorser also specifies the person to whom payment is to be made, the indorsement is said to be 'in full', and the person so specified is called the indorsee. (Para 12) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 8 and 78 - Payment made to a person in possession of the instrument, but not entitled to receive or recover the amount due thereon in his name, is not a valid discharge. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 8 and 9 - An obligation has been imposed on the transferee of the promissory notes, to be deemed to be a 'Holder in due course', that the notes should have been acquired in good faith; after exercising reasonable care and caution about the holder's title. (Para 11.2) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a cheque bounce case - Partly allowed - Upheld the conviction - Directed that sentence of imprisonment of one year vacated - Accused appellant sentenced to fine of Rs.5,000/- which he will deposit within a period of one month in the Trial Court. Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity - However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents, by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself, or through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. (Para 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Theory of 'probable defence' - The accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof - All which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exist - It becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence. (Para 7, 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal filed by two accused concurrently convicted in a murder case by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - They are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the ground that it cannot be with certainty held that they had common intention - Given the acts attributed to them, the assault by the main accused and the resultant outcome were unexpected. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable - Merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act - The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (Para 13, 19) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance - The word "furtherance" indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion - Scope of Section 34 IPC discussed. (Para 26, 28) Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Appeal against concurrent conviction of appellant by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 34 of IPC in this case - non­ examination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and pre­arranged plan extremely doubtful. Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common Intention - Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. (Para 4.2) State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common intention pre­supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds, a pre­arranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly. (Para 9) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre -arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Relevant Facts - The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co -assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co -perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - The expression "common intention" should also not be confused with "intention" or "mens rea" as an essential ingredient of several offences under the IPC - For some offences, mental intention is not a requirement but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is ingredient of the offence, may be identical with the common intention of the co -perpetrators, but this is not mandatory. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149, 141 - It is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more - Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and unnamed. Mahendra v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - Point whether culpable homicide would tantamount to murder or not discussed. (Para 6) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - The fact that the accused gave several blows/multiple blows on the vital part of the body – head which resulted into grievous injuries and he used "Phakadiyat" with such a force which resulted in Skull fracture and a frontal wound on left side and wounds with 34 stitches on the left side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along with coronal sutures of 16 cm, we are of the opinion that the case would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. (Para 7) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 and 376 – Rape and Murder - Death Sentence - Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence - Due consideration to be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed. (Para 42) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 - Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person - The evidence of the eye -witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts - Do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Appeal against High Court acquitting some of the accused in a murder case - Allowed - There are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused shared the common intention - Trial Court judgment restored. State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury - Injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body. (Para 7.2) State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304-B - "Soon before" is not synonymous to "immediately before". (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B - Demand for money raised on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word "dowry". (Para 12-14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 354 - Accused was convicted under Section 354 IPC - Sessions Court/ High Court dismissed his appeal/revision - Before Apex Court the accused submitted that a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant/victim - Dismissing his SLP, the Supreme Court held: No reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court. Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 - If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the 'offender' who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 - The use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 403, 415 - Appeal against Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash FIR registered against a tenant under Section 415,403 IPC - Allowed - No criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Section 403, 415 - Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 - Appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against appellant - Allowed - Two simultaneous proceedings, arising from the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of the law which is barred - It cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 - Breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - Fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating - A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. (Para 34) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 - In order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating, the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused. (Para 42, 23-36) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Entrustment" - It extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. (Para 24) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Property" - The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone - There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. (Para 25) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 - A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Penal Code, 1860; Section 494, 495 – Bigamy - Appeal against Gauhati HC order which dismissed petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (bigamy) despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage - Allowed - High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a 'highly contentious matter' which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence on the record. Musst Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against relatives of husband would simply result in an abuse of the process of law - If allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution. (Para 19 - 21) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Appeal against the order of the High Court denying permission to Appellant to leave the country - Allowed - The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC - the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in -laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (Para 18) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes - The duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. (Para 8-9) Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. (Para 22) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in -laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. (Para 12) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. (Para 8) Meera v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 - Defamation - Exceptions. (Para 18) Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Externment - Externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances - As the order takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. (Para 7, 12, 14) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - In a given case, even if multiple offences have been registered which are referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person proposed to be externed by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or their property. The recording of such subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment under clause (b). (Para 7) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Premature Release - Relevant Considerations - Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations - The application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. (Para 6, 7) Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Section 17A does not have retrospective operation - It could not possibly have been the intent of the legislature that all pending investigations upto July, 2018 should be rendered infructuous. (Para 11 - 12) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. (Para 7) K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5 - The satisfaction to be recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA is in two respects. The first is that the property in question had been acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in an offence of money laundering; and the second satisfaction specific in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act is that the owner/occupant of the property, who is in possession, is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner. This satisfaction is recorded for the purpose of interim arrangement during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings for securing the property in question. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The fact that the provisional attachment order is set aside by the High Court, does not per se result in nullifying the adjudication proceedings, which, can proceed and need to be taken to its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The power to provisionally attach tainted property is only of the authorised officer upon being satisfied about the existence of circumstances referred to in Section 5(1). Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5, 17 and 18 - The adjudication gets triggered after the complaint under Section 5(5) is filed before the adjudicating authority or on an application under Section 17(4) and also 18(10) of the Act. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 8 -The adjudication under Section 8 entails finally in confiscation of the tainted property or release thereof. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - In a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 13A - The burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding. (Para 19) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012; Rule 5 - The confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, is different from criminal prosecution. However, both may run simultaneously, to facilitate speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the means used for committing the offence. The District Magistrate has the power to independently adjudicate cases of violations under Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the 2004 Act and pass order of confiscation in case of violation. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 6 - Once, prima facie, it appears from the material before the Court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, both the grounds, namely that "there was a love affair" between the appellant and the second respondent as well as the alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing on the grant of bail. Having regard to the age of the prosecutrix and the nature and gravity of the crime, no case for the grant of bail was established. The order of the High Court granting bail has to be interfered with since the circumstances which prevailed with the High Court are extraneous in view of the age of the prosecutrix, having regard to the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO. X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner - Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law - By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3(b) - Penetrative sexual assault - When it has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor, the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act. (Para 8) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 23 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 155(2) - Whether Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO Act - Divergent views by judges in the Division Bench - Registry directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment before an appropriate Bench. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(2)(b) - Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request for extension of time to complete investigation - The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA - Review petition filed by the State dismissed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sadique, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290