Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 392 and 397 – Disclosure statement – where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the Court ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the accused – Its nearly three centuries old cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. The doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that “the acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as the conviction of the innocent” .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BIJENDER @ MANDAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2A) and 37 – Setting aside of arbitral award – – HELD to state that the grounds available for setting aside an award under sub-section (2A) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act could not have been invoked by the Court on its own, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. Notably, the expression used in the sub-rule is “the Court finds that”. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that a provision that enables a Court acting on its own in deciding a petition under Section 34 for setting aside an Award, would not be available in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAL UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 391, 395 and 397 – Mere acquittal of some of the accused on the same evidence by itself does not lead to a conclusion that all deserve to be acquitted in case appropriate reasons have been given on appreciation of evidence both in regard to acquittal and conviction of the accused – Conviction of accused for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is hereby set aside and the appellants–accused are convicted for the offences under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC – Appeal partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GANESAN AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
Customs Act 1962 – Sections 132, 135(1)(a)(ii) read with 135A – Once a common judgment is set aside for one appeal, it cannot be upheld for another appeal. There cannot be a severance of the judgment particularly when it arises in a criminal case, where the rights of the accused are as important as the rights of a victim.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 22(4) – National Security Act, 1980 – Section 3(2) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 53 – Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 – Section 3 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 274, 275, 308, 420 and 120B -Failure in timely communication of the rejection of representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenu is protected against under Article 22(5) – Based on the precedents of this Court – Failure of the Central and the State Government to communicate the rejection of the appellant’s representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention – Order of detention quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA — Appellant Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABAIPUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and…
Insurance policy – Husband of the complainant had taken the life insurance policy on 14.04.2011, that the next premium had fallen due on 14.10.2011 but was not paid by him, that the husband of the complainant met with an accident on 06.03.2012, that thereafter the premium was paid on 09.03.2012 and that he expired on 21.03.2012. It is also not disputed that at the time of making payment of premium on 09.03.2012, it was not disclosed by the complainant or her husband to the appellant-Corporation about the accident which had taken placed on 06.03.2012 – HELD the Accident benefit claim of the complainant was liable to be rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUNITA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 – it is crystal clear that the complaint does not satisfy the mandate of sub-section (1) to Section 22C of the Act as there are no assertions or averments that the appellant before this Court was in-charge of and responsible to the company M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. in the manner as interpreted by this CourtThe proviso to sub-section (1) in the present case would not apply. It is an exception that would be applicable and come into operation only when the conditions of sub-section (1) to Section 22C are satisfied. Notably, in the absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case does not and cannot rely on Section 22C(2) of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAYLE DE’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy…
Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 120B – – Merely because the offence of the conspiracy may be involved, investigation into the substantive offence, i.e., in the present case, offence under the PC Act which is cognizable is not required to await a sanction from the Magistrate, as that would lead to a considerable delay and affect the investigation and it will derail the investigation – Therefore, the High Court has erred in quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that as the offence under Section 120B which is a non-cognizable, prior sanction as required under Section 155 of J&K Cr.P.C. is not obtained – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S.…
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Sections 3 and 8 – Forest lands – Settlement of disputes – Respondent successfully urged before the High Court that what was demarcated was only 100 hectares and the others were not demarcated since they were cultivated – This was borne out by the final report – Possession with respect to 100 hectares of uncultivated forest lands was also covered by draft statement of land furnished to the Board in proceedings under the KLR Act – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 15A, 15A(3) and 15A(5) – Murder – Cancellation of bail – Notice issued to victim under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature – In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard were violated -Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIRAM BHAMBHI — Appellant Vs. SATYANARAYAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…