Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (July 25 - July 31, 2022)

Carriage by Air Act, 1972; Rule 30 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29 - Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years. (Para 43) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645 Child Custody - The question 'what is the wish/desire of the child' is different and distinct from the question 'what would be in the best interest of the child'. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to 'what would be in the best interest of the child' is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child - Unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, 'what would be the best interest of the child concerned' - Welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration. (Para 8) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643 Civil Cases - Pleadings - Relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. (Para 15-18) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 138 - Anticipatory Bail - Adverse order against third party by High Court in an anticipatory bail proceedings - It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 226 - Before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused, the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution - Over a period of time, this provision has gone, in oblivion - It permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. (Para 20, 15) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227-228 - Cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem report being the "cardio respiratory failure" - Whether Trial Court could have discharged the accused from offence of murder - At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record - Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. (Para 31) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The prosecution case is necessarily limited by the charge. It forms the foundation of the trial which starts with it and the accused can justifiably concentrate on meeting the subject matter of the charge against him. He need not cross examine witnesses with regard to offences he is not charged with nor need he give any evidence in defence in respect of such charges - Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged. It is not necessary then for him to meet evidence relating to the offences with which he has not been charged. He is merely to answer the charge as framed. The Code does not require him to meet all evidence led by prosecution. He has only to rebut evidence bearing on the charge. (Para 32) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial - Scope of Court's powers in respect of the framing of charges - Referred to Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 et al - The...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (July 25 - July 31, 2022)

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags