Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [October 24 to October 30]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEKPunjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act- Any Dispute With Respect To Mutation Entry Can Only Be Before Revenue Authorities : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only.This observation is in the context of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.In this case, the plaintiff challenged a mutation entry of 1955 by filing a suit before a civil court. The High Court allowed the second appeal holding that the suit before the Civil Court challenging the mutation entry was not maintainable at all and there was a bar of filing the civil suit.Testimonies Of Related/Interested Witnesses Have To Be Scrutinized With Greater Care And Circumspection : Supreme CourtWhen the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna observed while acquitting accused in a murder case.Jabbar Ali and others were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and the Gauhati High Court had dismissed their appeals.Before the Apex Court, the appellants mainly contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other and that all the witnesses have given contradictory versions as to who gave the fatal blow to deceased.Test For Determining Whether Question Of Law Raised Is Substantial Would Be To See Whether It Directly And Substantially Affects Rights Of Parties : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in an appeal against Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, explained the test for determining whether a case involves substantial question of law.The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said that the appropriate test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.HC Asks Husband To Pay Wife Rs 10 Lakhs For Anticipatory Bail In Dowry Harassment Case; Supreme Court Sets Aside Condition As UnreasonableThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar has recently set aside a decision of the Jharkhand High Court to impose a precondition for anticipatory bail that the accused would have to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 lakhs as ad interim victim compensation in favour of his wife. This appeal arose out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had instituted a criminal complaint against her husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later converted into a first information report, for offences under Section 498A and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.DNA Tests Can Violate Privacy Right, Can't Be Directed As Matter Of Course; Section 112 Evidence Act Protects Children : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath recently set aside a decision of a High Court allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been "forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship" with her brother-in-law. This appeal had arisen out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had lodged a first information report against her husband and his brother under Sections 498A, 323, and 354 and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench, allowing the appeal preferred by the accused, held that the trial court had accepted the application of the complainant "mechanically". By this order, which eventually came under the scanner of the apex court, the trial court had directed the appellants and the children "to give blood samples to a specified hospital for obtaining an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test".Question Whether Cheque Was Issued For A Time Barred Debt Or Not Cannot Be Decided In A Petition Under Section 482 CrPC : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court observed that the question whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J B Pardiwala observed that this question is a matter of evidence.In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Acts on the ground that on the date of summoning the accused the legally enforceable debt was time barred. The High Court observed that there is no averment in the entire complaint as regards any kind of acknowledgment of the said debt by the accused within the period of three years i.e. within the limitation period of recovering the debt.UGC Regulations 2013| Appointment Of Vice...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [October 24 to October 30]

Deepankar Malviya

Tags