Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Section 319 CrPC Power Has To Be Exercised Before Pronouncement Of Sentence In Case Of Conviction : Supreme Court Constitution Bench Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday pronounced the judgment answering the reference made on the ambit of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives power to the trial court to summon additional accused. Section 319 CrPC : 12 Guidelines Issued By Supreme Court's Constitution Bench To Summon Additional Accused During Trial Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued elaborate guidelines today regarding the excercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused during trial. A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna issued the guidelines while answering certain issues referred to it. Criminal Trial Is Not Complete On Conviction Of Accused, But With Sentencing: Supreme Court Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009 The Supreme Court held that a criminal trial is not complete on the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction of the accused, but with their sentencing. The conclusion of the trial in a criminal prosecution if it ends in conviction, a judgment is considered to be complete in all respects only when the sentence is imposed on the convict, if the convict is not given the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC, the five judges Constitution Bench observed in a judgment which dealt with a reference on the scope of power under Section 319 CrPC. Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Give '72 Hours Notice' To An Accused If State Intends To Arrest Him Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani vs Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 | SLP (Crl) 9092 of 2022 The Supreme Court set aside a direction issued by Bombay High Court to the State to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event it intends to arrest him. Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed. In this case, the Bombay High Court, while disposing an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused, directed that the accused should be given 72 hours' notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence. Senior Citizens Act - Transfer Can Be Set Aside Only If Was Subject To Condition Of Providing Basic Amenities : Supreme Court Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011 | CA 174 OF 2021 The Supreme Court has held that Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act will be attracted only if the transfer of property by a senior citizen was subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to him/her. In this case, a petition was filed by a senior citizen woman under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) alleging that her son and daughters were not maintaining her and therefore the release deed executed by her in favour of her two daughters has to be declared void. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the release deed null and void. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this order. Deceased's Income Tax Returns Can Be Considered For Computing His Annual Income In Motor Accident Compensation Claim Cases : Supreme Court Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 | CA 9014 OF 2022 The Supreme Court observed that deceased's Income Tax Return can be considered for computation of his annual income in Motor Accident Compensation Claim cases. In this case, the claimants had filed the deceased's Income Tax Returns before the Tribunal which showed the total income of deceased to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9855/- per month. The MACT disregarded it on the ground that neither any ITR prior to 2009-2010 nor any other document with regard to the deceased's income was filed. It thus fixed his income at Rs.4000/- per month i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum. In appeal, the High Court also refused to consider ITR and estimated the deceased's income as Rs.5,000/- per month. 'Collegium Discussions Cannot Be In Public Domain' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Disclose Details Of Dec 2018 Meeting Under RTI Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) | SLP (C) No. 21019/2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015 The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition which sought for details of the Supreme Court collegium's meeting of December 12, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, observing that the discussion cannot be disclosed...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags