Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 449, 376, 394 — Appeal against High Court’s upholding of conviction and sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of direct evidence connecting appellant to offense — Falsely implicated — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — No scientific evidence linking appellant — Important witnesses not associated in investigation or produced in court — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed. Insurance Law — Fire Insurance — Accidental Fire — Cause of fire is immaterial if the insured is not the instigator and there is no fraud. The objective of fire insurance is to indemnify the insured against loss by fire. Tender Conditions — Interpretation — Ambiguity — The terms of a tender must be clear and unambiguous — If a tendering authority intends for a specific document to be issued by a particular authority, it must be clearly stated in the tender conditions — Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the bid being deemed arbitrary and dehors the tender terms. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Environmental Protection — Monitoring Committee — Powers and Scope — A PIL was filed concerning environmental issues in Delhi, leading to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee. The Supreme Court clarified that the committee was appointed to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and not to interfere with residential premises used as such. Their power was limited to making suggestions to a Special Task Force regarding encroachments on public land, not to summarily seal premises.

Attempt to murder–It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof Attempt to murder—-To justify a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kuamr Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP…

Criminal Jurisprudence–If a person is charged under a grave Section, but however, if acquitted under the said grave section by the Trial Court, then it would amount to travesty of Justice if in his own appeal he is convicted under that grave section, without there being any appeal from the State and without there being prior notice of enhancement issued by the appellate Court.  

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2872 of 2008) Jarnail…

Culpable Homicide–Asthmatic patient kept under unhygienic conditions by Police Officers–Cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia on account of detention of the deceased in unhygienic condition despite his respiratory problems–Accused can be proceeded against under Section 304 Part II and Section 330 I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C.

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008 Indu Jain v. State of M.P. {Decided on 23/10/2008} For the…

Confession–Recovery of foreign exchange–Confession by accused later retracted–Burden to prove that confession was voluntary would be on Department. Burden of proof–Parliament did not make any provision placing the burden of proof on the accused/proceedee—The Act does not provide for a ‘reverse burden’–No presumption of commission of an offence is raised under the Act.

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7407 Of 2008 Vinod Solanki v. Union of India {Decided on 18/11/2008} Important Point…

You missed