Month: February 2024

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) – Quashing of FIR – Member of gang – For framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b) – FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FARHANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

High court had not applied the correct standard of proof for invoking Section 319 CrPC, which requires more than a prima facie case but short of evidence that would lead to conviction – The supreme court also noted that the allegations against the appellants were vague and omnibus and that the trial court order was well reasoned and not perverse.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH N. MANOGAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,…

Electoral Bond Scheme, the proviso to Section 29C(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (as amended by Section 137 of Finance Act 2017), Section 182(3) of the Companies Act (as amended by Section 154 of the Finance Act 2017), and Section 13A(b) (as amended by Section 11 of Finance Act 2017) are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and unconstitutional

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

Service Matters

Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – Appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits – Order of termination set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATRAPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138 and 141 – Dishonour of cheque – Insufficient funds – Liability – According to Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director who resigns from a company before a cheque is issued cannot be held responsible for cheque bouncing offenses.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH VIREN SHAH — Appellant Vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…2024…

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Sections 18(A), 18(c), 27 (b)(ii) and 28 – Conviction and sentence – Imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified, particularly when the intent to sell/distribute under Section 18(c) of the Act has been held unproven – It fit to modify the impugned judgment, set aside the sentence of imprisonment as awarded, and instead thereof, impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Appellant – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALANI — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2024…

Forging a power of attorney and a sale deed – High Court erred in assuming that there was no criminality involved in the alleged offences and that the matter was purely civil in nature – The Supreme Court also clarifies that the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate prosecution under the Registration Act, 1908, and that the quashing of the circular on which the Sub-Registrar relied did not affect the merits of the case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN KUMAR RAI — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Respondent appears to have been hurt in view of the statements made by the petitioner generally about Gujarati people – Now, after the petitioner has explained the context in which he made the statements and after withdrawal of those statements, in the facts of the case, it is unjust to continue the prosecution – No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution – Defamation complaint quashed – Appeal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV — Appellant Vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Transfer Petition…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.