Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Rape & Murder Of 7.5 Year Old: SC Commutes Death Sentence [Vijay Raikwar V. State of Madhya Pradesh] The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted for rape and murder of 7 1/2 year old girl. Three Judge Bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, upheld the conviction, but observed that, though the crime can be said to be brutal, but does not warrant death sentence. Proof Of 'Common Intention' Necessary To Alter Conviction From Section 149 IPC To Section 34 IPC [Mala Singh V. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court observed that, while convicting accused by altering charge from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC, their 'common intention' should be proved. Eleven accused were convicted by the Trial Court for committing murder of one lady. In the appeal filed by the accused, the High Court acquitted eight persons from all the charges whereas dismissed the appeal in respect of three accused persons, and upheld their conviction by taking recourse to Section 34 IPC. Section 456 CrPC: Limitation Of 30 Days Would Not Apply If Trial Court Had Already Ordered Restoration Of Possession [Mahesh Dube v. Shivbodh DubeI] The Supreme Court observed that the limitation of 30 days would not apply in preferring an application under Section 456 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking restoration of immovable property, if the Trial Court had passed an order directing to handover the case property to the, while convicting the accused. Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Examine Whether The Complaint Is A Civil Dispute Cloaked With Criminal Nature [Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. V. Sudha Seetharam & Anr] The Supreme Courtreiterated that a High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded Would Run Concurrently Or Consecutively in The Order [Gagan Kumar V. State of Punjab] The Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal requirement to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively. Bhima Koregaon : SC Sets Aside Bombay HC Judgment Which Refused Additional Time To File Chargesheet [State of Maharashtra V. Surendra Pundlik Gadling] The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court judgment which had refused to grant additional time beyond 90 days under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for filing the charge sheet against lawyer Surendra Gadling and four other activists arrested in Bhima Koregaon case. Existence Of Parity Between Two Allowances For Several Years Does Not Mean It Should Continue In Future Also [Union of India V. Captain Gurdev Singh & Anr] The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar observed thus while setting aside a High Court judgment that directed the Union of India and the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs and Finance, to award parity between the Bhutan Compensatory Allowance payable to the Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT) posted in Bhutan, and the Foreign Allowance payable to Indian diplomatic personnel serving in Bhutan under the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Criminal Complaints Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Allegations Appear To Be Of A Civil Nature [Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar V. State of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court observed that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah said that, if the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted by invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Stale Claim By Employee Doesn't Become 'Live Claim' Merely By Filing Belated Representation [Union of India vs. C. Girija] The Supreme Court observed that a stale claim of an employee does not become a live claim merely by filing representations before the employer belatedly. In this case , the claim of the railway employee for inclusion of her name in the select panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001, was first raked up by her, by filing representation on 25.09.2007. As the representation was rejected, the employee had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in her favour. Bank Employee Has No Right To Be Associated With Decision Making Process For Fixation Of Salary [The State Bank of India V. Ravindra Nath] The Supreme Court observed that the employee of a Bank has no right that he should be associated with the decision-making process in respect of the fixation of...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags