Latest Post

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside. 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. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death – Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased. Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Section 15 – Defaulting Member – Notice for meeting of election – A clear reading and interpretation of the proviso to Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would disentitle such defaulting members from being given any notice even if their membership was not terminated or ceased – However, the effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act which admittedly is applicable to the Society, the Objectors have to be treated as suspended members and therefore, would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – Conspiracy and homicide – Recovery of Body from the Pond – The appeals challenge the High Court’s dismissal of the appellants’ criminal appeals and the upholding of their convictions and sentences by the trial court – The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of proven circumstances does not conclusively point to their guilt – The respondent-State maintained that the trial court and High Court’s concurrent findings were based on a cogent appreciation of evidence, warranting no interference – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court and trial court judgments, and acquitted the appellants of all charges, directing their immediate release – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside.

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.

The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015,  dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC QUASHED

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016) K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. .... Appellant(s)…

V IMP :::: Will–Joint and Mutual Will—Survivor after death of other testator during his life time can deal as absolute owner of the property but when he dies, he is to bequeath what is left in the manner agreed upon between both the testators originally. Will—Intention of Testator—Court is not entitled to ignore clear words or add something of its own or dilute the meaning of any clear word used in the Will.

(2017) 173 AIC 224 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1473 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1473 : (2017) AllSCR 685 : (2017) 122 ALR 470 : (2017) 3 AndhLD 128 : (2017) 2 ApexCourtJudgments(SC)…

“It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also.”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION HEAD NOTE: The Court also noted that in a case like this with a reverse burden of proof, if the informant police official is himself carrying out…

V IMP ::: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Refund of excess amount paid-During appeal before High Court 80% of award by Tribunal was disbursed-High Court had reduced amount awarded by Tribunal and granted liberty to recover excess amount—However, in appeal Supreme Court enhanced the amount to some extend but was less than award of Tribunal-Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for refund of excess amount by exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 142

(2017) 175 AIC 265 : (2017) AllSCR 841 : (2017) 124 ALR 523 : (2017) 1 AnWR 436 : (2017) 2 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 249 : (2017) 2 BBCJ 8 : (2017)…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.23 and O.26 R.9–Remand of Case-Suit for declaration—Claim for ownership and possession in booth sites allotted by society-Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties claiming to be in possession, case remanded to trial court to appoint a Commissioner to get a report as to the location of the disputed sites and their physical features and other relevant facts and decide afresh.       

(2017) 174 AIC 62 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1341 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1341 : (2017) 123 ALR 271 : (2017) 1 ARC 768 : (2017) 1 BBCJ 421 : (2017) 2…

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.