Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

SC Grants Bail To Chidambaram In CBI Case In INX Media Scam [P Chidambaram V. CBI] The Supreme Court granted bail to former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the case registered by CBI on corruption allegations in relation to INX Media FDI transaction. The bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy had reserved judgment on October 18 in his petition challenging the September 30 judgment of the Delhi HC that had denied him bail. Flight Risk Of Economic Offenders Cannot Be Looked At As A National Phenomenon To Deny Bail [P Chidambaram V. CBI] "Flight risk" of economic offenders cannot be looked at as a national phenomenon, said the Supreme Court while rejecting the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's contention against grant of bail to P. Chidambaram. The bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi said that "flight risk" is to be considered on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved. Disputed Property Claim Based On Inheritance Cannot Be Decided In A Criminal Proceeding [M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana] The Supreme Court observed that a disputed property claim based on inheritance can be only in an appropriate civil proceeding and not in a criminal proceeding. The bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice BR Gavai quashed a complaint, which it noted is only a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs. Execution- Court Order Required Before Providing Police Assistance To Deliver Possession To Decree Holder [Om Prakash V. Amar Singh] The Supreme Court observed that in execution proceedings, the concerned court's order has to be obtained before providing police assistance to deliver possession to the decree holder. (Rape) Conviction Cannot Be Solely Based On Statements Made To Police U/s 154/161 CrPC [Narra Peddi Raju vs. State of AP] The Supreme Court, while acquitting a rape accused, observed that the conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on a statement of the witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 or 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Surya Kant acquitted a man convicted in a rape case by the Trial Court fifteen years ago, in 2004. HC Cannot Modify Order Affirmed By SC Invoking Its Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC [State of Punjab vs. Ranjit Kaur] The Supreme Court observed that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable the High Court to alter, add to, modify or vary any order that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the High Court had allowed the petition filed by the accused and had ordered that the sentences imposed in 69 Challan cases pertaining to FIR 21/1996 should run concurrently. State Consumer Commission Cannot Set Aside Ex-Parte Order [Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury V. UCO Bank] The District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have no power to set aside ex-parte orders, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position while allowing an appeal filed by Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. Tests To Be Applied While Sentencing In A Criminal Case; SC Explains [State of MP vs. Udham] The Supreme Court briefly explained three tests to be applied while sentencing in a criminal case. The court said that the crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test have to be applied while sentencing an accused in a criminal case. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi were considering the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in which reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 452 of the IPC. 498A IPC-Criminal Complaint Cannot Continue After Settlement Between Parties In Marital Disputes [Rajiv Kumar Sharma V. State of Uttar Pradesh] The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint made u/s 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act cannot continue if the parties have amicably settled the matter. The order passed by a bench of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari found that the High Court despite the arrangement arrived at between the parties declined to quash the proceedings. It was held that the High Court should have taken note of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal action initiated by the complainant. Courts Should Be Conscious Of Bureaucratic Delays While Considering Delay Condonation Pleas By State [State of Manipur vs. Koting Lamkang] The Supreme...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags