Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

[Ayodhya] : SC Allows Temple Construction In Disputed Land; Alternate Plot Of 5 Acres For Mosque [M. Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das] In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed the Court. Section 482 CrPC- Inherent Powers Cannot Be Invoked To Alter Sentence Imposed By The HC Itself [State of MP vs. Man Singh] The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits, the Supreme Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the High Court has no power to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the sentence imposed by it. Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No Variation Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order [Bansidhar Sharma(Since Deceased) Vs The State Of Rajasthan] The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted when there is no variation or reversal of a decree or order . [Rape & Murder] Accused Cannot Be Convicted Merely Because Extra Judicial Confession Is Proved [Vinod @ Manoj V. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court acquitted a young man who spent about thirteen years in jail after he was convicted in a rape and murder case. The bench comprising Justice set aside the concurrent conviction by the High Court and the Trial Court and observed that the prosecution has failed to prove other circumstances apart from an extra judicial confession relied upon by it beyond reasonable doubt. MV Act- Relinquishment Of Shares By A Dependent Doesn't Disentitle Her From Claiming Compensation [Renu Rani Shrivastava Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.] The Supreme Court observed that relinquishment of share by a claimant (dependent of the deceased) does not disentitle her from claiming compensation. One of the contentions adopted by the Insurance Company was that the wife of the deceased has relinquished her share in favour of her in-laws and got certain properties in lieu thereof and, therefore, the wife of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation Complaint U/s 138 NI Act Maintainable Against Dishonour Of Cheque Issued Pursuant To Lok Adalat Award [Arun Kumar vs. Anita Mishra] The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque issued pursuant to the Lok Adalat award is maintainable. In this case as regards the first cheque issued by the accused, a criminal case was preferred u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it resulted in conviction and a sentence of fine. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and both the parties in Lok Adalat to withdraw pending litigation. A cheque was also given in the light of the settlement and the same has been dishonoured. The second complaint has been preferred on account of dishonour of the second cheque. Dissent By One Judge Not A Bar For Upholding Death Penalty: SC Rejects Review Petition Of Death Convict [Manoharan V. State] The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Manoharan whose death penalty was upheld it a few months ago. The Supreme Court (2:1) had, in August 2019, upheld the death sentence awarded to Manoharan involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her and her brother. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Surya Kant had upheld the death penalty and Justice Sanjiv Khanna had expressed his dissent against upholding death sentence. Section 164 CrPC: Presence Of Advocate Not Mandatory When Confession Of Accused Before Magistrate Is Not Recorded By Audio-Video Means [Manoharan V. State] The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory that a confession or statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should necessarily be made in the presence of the advocate(s) except when such confessional statement is recorded with audio-video electronic means.The bench was dealing with the submission of Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the review petitioner death convict Manoharan. He had contended that the absence of a counsel during proceedings before the Magistrate under section 164, CrPC has caused prejudice to the accused. Lacuna Left By Legislature Cannot Be Filled By Judicial...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags