Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Section 173(8) CrPC: Courts Not Obliged To Hear Accused While Considering Plea For Further Investigation [Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of Gujarat] The Supreme Court reiterated that a court is not obliged to hear the accused before any direction for further investigation is made under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, the application filed by the appellant seeking to join as a respondent in a Special Criminal Application seeking further investigation against other persons was dismissed by the High Court. Upholding the High Court order, the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah, referring to earlier decisions on this aspect, observed that there is nothing in Section 173(8) CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any direction for further investigation is made. ● 'Retired People Need Security In The Fall Of Life' : SC Upholds Right To Pension Of SBI Employees Who Took VRS After 15 Or More Years Of Service [Assistant General Manager & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Pandey] The Supreme Court held that employees of State Bank of India who have taken voluntary retirement as per the 2000 VRS scheme after 15 or more years of service as on the cut-off date are entitled to proportionate pension as per SBI Pension Fund Rules. A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and BR Gavai held so while answering a reference following conflicting of views between judges regarding admissibility of pension under VRS. ● Newly Registered Trust Entitled For Registration Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act On The Basis Of Its Objects [M/s Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.] The Supreme Court held that a newly registered Trust is entitled to registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of its objects, without any activity having been undertaken. A three judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observed that the term 'activities' in the Section includes 'proposed activities' which means that a Commissioner is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. ● Second Complaint On Same Facts Not Maintainable [Samita Naidu & Anr. v. State of MP & Anr.] If the earlier disposal of the complaint had been on merits and in a manner known to law, the second complaint on "almost identical facts" which were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices UU Lalit & Vineet Saran held that a second complaint on same facts as the first complaint shall not be maintainable. The bench pointed out that if the core of both complaints was same, the second complaint ought not to be maintained. ● Immovable Property Cannot Be Seized By Police Under Section 102 CrPC, Reiterates SC [Downtown Temptations Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal] The Supreme Court reiterated that immovable property cannot be seized by Police under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the appeal, the bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat noted that sealing that has taken place of the premises is admittedly for more than one year and not by the Magistrate as required by Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. ● DRAT Cannot Entertain An Appeal U/s 18 SARFAESI Act Without Insisting On Pre- Deposit [Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.] The Supreme Court observed that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, without insisting on pre-deposit. The bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court that held that no pre-deposit was required to entertain an appeal by DRAT. ● Statement U/s 161 CrPC Inadmissible In Evidence And Cannot Be Relied Upon For Conviction [Parvat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh] The Supreme Court reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. While setting aside a concurrent conviction in a murder case, the bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah observed that a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions. ● [Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act] Consent Of Wife, Actual Ceremony Of Adoption Essential For Valid Adoption [M Vanaja v. Sarla Devi] The Supreme Court observed that the consent of the wife of the adopter and actual ceremony of adoption...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags