Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — ‘No-fault’ liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an “untoward incident” — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — ‘Clean slate’ doctrine — Effect of approved Resolution Plan on claims — Upon approval under S. 31(1), claims provided in the Plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders — Claims not incorporated in the Plan stand extinguished, withdrawn or abated — Resolution Applicant entitled to commence operations free from unforeseen liabilities — Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Record of evidence in absence of accused — Scope and applicability — Exception to the rule that a witness must be examined in presence of the accused and to the principle under S. 33, Evidence Act — Being an exception, all prescribed conditions must be strictly complied with — Deposition recorded in absence of an absconding accused admissible against him upon arrest, if deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21, 32, 14, 142 — Prisoners, rights of — Elderly and terminally ill convicts — Continued incarceration despite advanced age (above 70 years) or terminal illness — Held, imprisonment does not suspend constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment — Right to life under Art. 21 continues in custody and extends to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — NALSA’s nationwide Special Campaign identifying 5,393 vulnerable prisoners, including 11 terminally ill and 84 above 70 years across 17 States and 1 Union Territory, disclosed systemic gap between executive policy and ground-level implementation — Continued detention causing avoidable suffering held constitutionally impermissible — Supreme Court, invoking Arts. 32 and 142, directed States/UTs to formulate uniform compassionate-release policy.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.

(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…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18(1) – Fixation of market value – Reference to Court – Fixation of market value in a Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 necessarily involves some guesswork – Guesswork is required to be made by adopting one of the well-recognized methods, such as the comparison method or capitalization method.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMAN — Appellant Vs. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – An exhortation given by an accused immediately before a co-accused fired a shot killing the deceased would prove his involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GULAB — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and Vikram Nath, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Summoning of additional accused – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – During the trial if it is found that other accused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Merely because some other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed