Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Acquittal

(IPC) – Ss 419, 353, 447 and 120B – Discharge – took photographs of case records from mobile phone of civil judge – Court sounds a note of caution for the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of similar incident and at the same time records a note of appreciation for the second respondent for not precipitating the matter further – After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving is divine’

Bysclaw

Jun 3, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

NEVILLE DADI MASTER @ NEVILLE MASTER — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No. of 2023; [Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No.3212 of 2023]

Decided on : 19-05-2023

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 419, 353, 447 and 120B – Discharge – Unlawfully entered the chamber of a civil judge and took photographs of case records from mobile phone – Senior counsel appearing for the appellant fervently urged the Court to allow the appellant to meet the second respondent and tender his unqualified apology for the conduct complained of in the complaint – Bearing in mind that offences under sections 447 and 419 of the Cr. P.C. are compoundable coupled with the satisfaction reported by the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in subjecting the appellant to stand trial – This Court sounds a note of caution for the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of similar incident and at the same time records a note of appreciation for the second respondent for not precipitating the matter further – After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving is divine’ – Appellant is discharged of the bail bond.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Karol, Advocate, Mr. Chestha Jetly, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Tandon, Advocate, Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate, Ms. Aanchal Khanna, Advocate and Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Advocate, Ms. Anju Thomas, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Advocate, Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Advocate, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Devvrat Singh, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Surana, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Dipankar Datta, J. – Leave granted.

2. On the basis of a complaint dated 9th August, 2017 lodged by the second respondent, an F.I.R. of even date under sections 419/353/447/120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, hereafter) read with section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (‘P.C. Act, hereafter) was registered against the appellant. Investigation that followed culminated in a report (charge-sheet) being filed under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr. P.C.’, hereafter). Since the offence under section 12 of the P.C. Act is exclusively triable by the Special Court the case was accordingly committed to such court by the relevant Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘ACJM’, hereafter). The appellant then applied for discharge, which was allowed in part. The Special Court, though held that there was no ground for framing charge under sections 353/120B of the IPC and section 12 of the P.C. Act, was satisfied of there being prima facie material to proceed against the appellant under sections 447/419 of the IPC; hence, by an order dated 19th September, 2022, the Special Court transmitted the case to the court of the ACJM. This order of the Special Court was challenged by the appellant in an application under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before the Calcutta High Court. For the reasons contained in his order dated 2nd January, 2023, a learned Judge has dismissed the application.

3. The challenge in this civil appeal is to the said order of dismissal.

4. Having regard to the order that this Court proposes to pass, it is considered inessential to refer to who the appellant and the second respondent are and also as to what transpired between them on the relevant date triggering the complaint dated 9th August, 2017 lodged by the latter.

5. Mr. Luthra learned senior counsel for the appellant was heard at length on 21st March, 2023. The contentions raised by him on behalf of the appellant on the merits of the orders passed by the Special Court and the High Court did not impress this Court. However, since sections 447 and 419 of the IPC make the offences thereunder compoundable by the person in possession of the property trespassed and cheated, respectively, Mr. Luthra fervently urged the Court to allow the appellant to meet the second respondent and tender his unqualified apology for the conduct complained of in the aforesaid complaint.

6. The prayer of Mr. Luthra was granted. The appellant was directed to meet the second respondent in person and tender unqualified apology. The second respondent was required to report to the Registry of the Calcutta High Court regarding his satisfaction of the nature of apology tendered by the appellant.

7. A report dated 31st March, 2023 of the second respondent has since been received and placed on the record. Reading of such report reveals tendering of unqualified apology by the appellant to the second respondent for his conduct and remorse being expressed in regard thereto. It is also reported that the second respondent is ‘satisfied with such tender’.

8. Mr. Luthra has submitted that it was an act of indiscretion on the part of the appellant; however, having realized that he has committed a grave mistake for which no one else is to be faulted, he is now genuinely regretful and undertakes not to repeat such conduct in future. He, accordingly, prayed that this Court may direct closure of the proceedings upon setting aside the orders of the Special Court and the High Court.

9. Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, in his usual fairness, has left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

10. In the light of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Luthra, which is treated as an undertaking of the appellant to this Court, and bearing in mind that offences under sections 447 and 419 of the Cr. P.C. are compoundable coupled with the satisfaction reported by the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in subjecting the appellant to stand trial. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this particular case and to give a quietus to the matter, closure of G.R. Case No. 2199 of 2017 which the ACJM is presently seized of against the appellant is warranted upon setting aside of the orders dated 19th September, 2022 and 2nd January, 2023. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant is discharged of the bail bond.

11. The appeal is allowed, without any order for costs.

12. Before parting, this Court sounds a note of caution for the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of similar incident and at the same time records a note of appreciation for the second respondent for not precipitating the matter further. After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving is divine’.

13. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the second respondent.

By sclaw

Related Post

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal Circumstantial Evidence

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307 and 201 — Murder of mother, wife, and daughter, and the attempt to murder of neighbor — Circumstantial Evidence — The main issue was whether the appellant was guilty of the murders and attempted murder, and whether the death penalty was warranted — The appellant argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured neighbor, was unreliable and that the recoveries of the hammer and clothes were not credible — The State argued that the evidence, including the neighbor’s testimony and the recoveries, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt — The Supreme Court found the testimony of the neighbor unreliable due to contradictions and delayed recording — The recoveries were also deemed not credible — The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt — The evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt — The Court referred to established principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence — The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, directing the appellant to be released if not required in any other case.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw