Month: December 2021

(IPC) – Section 477A – Falsification of accounts – the prosecution must, therefore, prove—(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question; (b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the accused did it wilfully and with intent to defraud.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – S 420 – Cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property – the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. It is equally important that for the purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent -‘criminal breach of trust’ is defined under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 45 and 47 and 67 – Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced – Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. SARADAMBAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

(NDPS) – Sections 8, 21 and 50 – Recovery of smack from motorcycle – Substance weighed 900gms – No incriminating substance was recovered during the personal search – Argument of non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act – In the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALLU KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.Z ) Criminal Appeal No. 1605…

Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind – not a fit case for grant bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

(CrPC) – S 482 – (IPC) – Ss 420 and 120B – P C Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Allegations of corruption while allotting 10 plots arbitrarily to their family members by hatching the criminal conspiracy by public servant – powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court – While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial – Impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 9 and 42(4) – Captive consumers/captive users – Liability to pay additional surcharge – HELD – In the case of the captive consumers/captive users, they have also to incur the expenditure and/or invest the money for constructing, maintaining or operating a captive generating plant and dedicated transmission lines – Therefore, as such the Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that so far as the captive consumers/captive users are concerned, the additional surcharge under sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003 shall not be leviable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

HELD – without expressing anything on the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant – This Court set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant afresh along with the cases of his father and his cousins.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUSHIKESH BHARAT GARUD — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

IMP : Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Proof of wills – Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. SARADAMBAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed