Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Section 313 CrPC: Inculpatory Material As Not Put To The Accused Must Be Eschewed [SamsulHaque vs. State of Assam] The Supreme Court has reiterated that the incriminating material that came in evidence is to be put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that this is in recognition of the principles of audialterampartem so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself. NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Prosecution From Establishing Prima Facie Case Against Accused [Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau Of Narcotics] The Supreme Court observed that, though Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act carries reverse burden of proof, it does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case against the accused.The bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering an appeal challenging conviction of an accused under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the NDPS Act sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default stipulation Proof That Offence Was Committed Only Because Victim Was SC-ST Member Necessary To Sustain Conviction U/s 3(2)(v) SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act [Khuman Singh vs. State of MP] In order to sustain a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it must be proved that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna set aside the conviction of the accused under the SC-ST Act on the ground that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the accused only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Outer Limit Of 120 Days To File 'Section 34' Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award Not Diluted By 2015 Amendment [NHAI vs. SubhashBindlish] The Supreme Court observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act. Subsequent Bail Application Maintainable Before Sessions Court After Withdrawal Of First One Filed Before HC [Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra] An accused after withdrawing his bail application before the High Court can file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Ajay Rastogi was considering appeal filed against a High Court order that revoked the bail granted to accused by the Sessions Court on the ground that the application was not maintainable before it as he previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. Judicial Service- HC Can't Modify/Relax Instructions Issued By Public Service Commission [State of Tamil Nadu V. G. Hemalathaa] The Supreme Court recently observed that instructions issued by the Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory and to be strictly complied with and the High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions. Can SC Interfere With HC's Discretion Entertaining Writ Petition In Spite Of There Being Alternative Remedy? SC Bench Delivers Split Judgment [State of Rajasthan vs. Lord Northbrook] Can the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court, merely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy? A two judge bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee recently delivered a split judgment on the issue. Disagreeing with Justice Banumathi's order setting aside a judgment of the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy, Justice Banerjee observed that it is always a matter of discretion with the Court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. Judicial Service-A Candidate Applied For General Category Cannot Subsequently Claim Seat Reserved For Disabled Candidate [Rajasthan HC V. Neetu Harsh] The Supreme Court held that a Candidate Applied for General Category cannot claim the seat reserved for disabled candidates at a later stage.The Bench comprising Justices R Banumati and AS Bopanna dismissed the claim of a visually impaired candidate who had filled the application form under General category, and later claimed a seat reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) category in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2016. Expert Evidence Should Not Be Given Precedence Over Substantive...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags