Supreme Court Invalidates State Government’s Scheduled Caste Notification, Upholding Constitutional Authority
The case of Union of India vs. Rohit Nandan revolves around the appeal by the Union of India against a ruling by the Patna High Court that had allowed Rohit Nandan’s writ petition challenging the dismissal of his Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court’s decision had favored Nandan, granting him recognition under the Scheduled Caste category. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, restoring the Tribunal’s dismissal and clarifying that Nandan could not continue to benefit from an illegal certification as a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal classifications established by appropriate procedures. This case highlights the complexities surrounding caste classifications and the judicial interpretation of constitutional protections for Scheduled Castes.
Pakistan to Gujarat Border Narcotics: NIA Act is offence centric and not accused centric: Cancellation of bail upheld
In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the complexities surrounding bail cancellation in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor against the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The petitioner, Ankush Vipan Kapoor, filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2819 of 2024, challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that canceled his bail in relation to FIR No. 20/2020. This case sheds light on critical issues of law concerning the powers of investigative agencies, the rights of the accused, and the judicial process in serious criminal allegations. Present FIR pertains to 500 kgs narcotics smuggling and distribution illicitly transported from Pakistan to Gujarat The backdrop of this judgment involves serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), where the NIA argued for the cancellation of Kapoor’s bail based on the need for custodial interrogation. The agency’s position was predicated on the belief that the investigation revealed connections between multiple FIRs, showcasing a broader network of organized drug trafficking. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court weighed the arguments presented by senior counsel for the petitioner against the assertions made by the NIA and the Union of India, emphasizing the intricate relationship between different offenses being investigated. This judgment serves as a notable precedent regarding the balance of justice and the presumption of innocence in cases involving serious allegations. The Court’s decision not only addresses the legal remedies available to the accused but also underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the rights of individuals are not compromised during the investigative process. As the implications of this ruling unfold, it marks a crucial point in the dialogue surrounding criminal law, procedural justice, and the operational dynamics of the NIA in handling high-profile cases of national concern.
High Court cannot damage the career of judicial officer by way of observations if the trial court did not follow specific format given by High Court
The Supreme Court of India, ruled in favor of Ayub Khan, a District and Sessions Judge in Rajasthan, who had appealed against an adverse observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court for not following its prescribed format ( a particular form) in a bail order. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court can set principles for granting bail, it cannot mandate the format of bail orders, and non-compliance should not be treated as indiscipline or contempt. Consequently, the Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks and set aside the High Court’s directions, thereby protecting the judicial discretion of trial courts and ensuring that judicial officers are not unfairly penalized for procedural non-compliance.
Duty of the registry is to control litigants who files synopsis that runs 128 pages
The Supreme Court of India granted Deepti Sharma leave to appeal, condoning delays in filing. Deepti Sharma, who obtained a divorce decree on grounds of cruelty in 2016, challenged a 2019 order from the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench. This order, passed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was initially directed by the Supreme Court to be heard by a single judge but was instead decided by a Division Bench due to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive. The High Court had set aside a Family Court order from May 27, 2019, which dismissed Deepti Sharma’s Section 125 CrPC petition for non-prosecution, and restored the petition for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order, which was in favor of Deepti Sharma, and dismissed the civil appeal, directing the Family Court to adjudicate the matter afresh. The Supreme Court also noted that other related cases, including contempt petitions and a criminal case, were pending in the High Court and requested their expedited resolution. The appellant’s extensive 128-page synopsis was deemed excessive, and the court emphasized the need for concise submissions in future cases.
Supreme Court Mandates Immediate Redistribution of Surplus Land in Landmark Judgment
Supreme Court Mandates Immediate Redistribution of Surplus Land in Landmark Judgment.
Appeal against acquittal: In appeal against acquittal presumption of innocence is fortified and appellate Court not to take contrary view if trial court’s view is plausible
The case is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.153 of 2011 delivered by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai District. The appellant, the defacto complainant, alleged that the first accused and his wife attacked him and their father, leading to the father’s death. The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not giving due credence to his testimony as an injured witness. However, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the trial court’s view was legally plausible and there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal.
Witness saw accused with blood-stained shirt but did not see him together with the deceased cannot be a proof for last seen theory
This judgment is a criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.232 of 2019) decided by the High Court of Judicature at Madras concerning the appellant, Aravindan, who was convicted in S.C.No.69 of 2017 for murder under Section 302 IPC. The case arises from an incident on 13.06.2016, wherein the deceased, Chinnasamy, was killed by the appellant during a quarrel while under the influence of alcohol. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged by the deceased’s son, leading to the investigation and arrest of the accused. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness statements and a confession made by the accused. The court highlights the importance of both circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimonies (PWs 6, 7, and 8). It scrutinizes the credibility of these witnesses, noting that PW-7, the son-in-law of the deceased, and the other witnesses did not report the incident to the police or inform the deceased’s family, raising questions about their reliability. The court refers to established legal principles regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. It emphasizes that the evidence presented must be compelling enough to exclude any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The court insists that all links in the chain of evidence must be established to substantiate a conviction. The sheer delay in forwarding statement recorded under section 161 Crpc was flagged as indicative of potential issues with the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Given the doubts raised about the reliability of the evidence and the failure of the prosecution to meet the requisite legal standards, the court suggests that the accused should not be convicted based on the evidence submitted and finally acquitted the accused by setting aside the sentence.
Quashing FIR based on settlement in special statute like PC Act would impact the society at large
The case involves allegations against the appellants related to fraud and cheating concerning a loan of Rs. 25 Crores obtained from SICOM Ltd. in 2013. The complaint, lodged by respondent no. 3 with the Central Bureau of Investigation, claims that the appellants diverted funds from the loan account and changed building plans without bank consent, which resulted in the collateral’s reduced value. Initially valued at Rs. 107.7 Crores in 2014, the property’s value plummeted to Rs. 3.45 Crores when it was revalued in 2018 after the account was designated as a Non-Performing Asset. The FIR was registered against the appellants on 24.07.2022, and a chargesheet was filed on 31.12.2021. The appellants sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet through a Writ Petition which was ultimately rejected by the High Court. Thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court dismisses the appeal stating that the quashing of FIR for settlement in special statute like PC Act would affect the society at large.
Company is the drawer of the cheque and the authorised signatory is merely a limb that signs the cheque
The main legal issue addressed in this case revolves around the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly concerning the lack of the company’s involvement as an accused party. The High Court emphasized that, without the company being arraigned as an accused and the necessary compliance with the requirements for vicarious liability under Section 141, the accused could not be convicted as the sole accused. This highlighted the importance of having the principal offender, in this case, the company part of the proceedings for the complaint to be considered valid. The conclusion reached in this case is that the appeal is to be dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court is upheld. The court affirmed that the findings of lower courts regarding the accused’s liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were correct. It emphasized the necessity of a clear showing of liability and compliance with legal provisions, confirming that the proceedings followed the appropriate legal framework. The High Court’s ruling signifies the importance of adhering to the established legal principles to sustain a claim under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Suicide instigation should put in such position that the victim has no other option but to commit suicide
The appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of Jyoti Nagre, who committed suicide by hanging herself on March 20, 2015. The appellants were charged under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the allegations of mental and physical torture by the appellants, which led to the deceased’s suicide. The trial court and the High Court had dismissed the appellants’ plea for discharge from the charges. The Supreme Court, however, found that there was a significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide, which weakened the prosecution’s case. The Apex Court highlighted the importance of establishing a clear connection between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. The Court concluded that the appellants’ words and actions did not directly result in the deceased’s suicide, as there was no immediate instigation or abetment involved. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and discharged the appellants from all charges.
After the accident vehicle caused the accident dragged in high speed about 15 feet hence the act of rash and negligence proved
In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner.
Parents visiting right is modified keeping the child’s well-being and health
The Supreme Court judgment revolves around a custody dispute between Sugirtha and Gowtham. The couple married on September 9, 2021, and had a daughter on June 6, 2022. Following allegations of cruelty and domestic violence, Sugirtha filed for divorce in June 2023. The Family Court granted Gowtham visitation rights, requiring Sugirtha to bring their daughter to Karur every Sunday. Sugirtha appealed, arguing that the 300-kilometer round trip from Madurai to Karur was too burdensome and posed a threat to the child’s health and safety. The Madras High Court dismissed Sugirtha’s appeal but modified the visitation schedule to allow visits in Karur for two months and then alternate weekends. The Supreme Court acknowledged Gowtham’s right to visitation but prioritized the child’s health and well-being. It modified the visitation location to Madurai and set specific guidelines for the visits, ensuring that the child’s health and best interests were not compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to balance Gowtham’s visitation rights with the child’s best interests and health. The court emphasized that while the father has the right to visit his child, it should not come at the cost of the child’s health and well-being. The judgment reflects the court’s effort to ensure that the child’s welfare remains paramount in custody disputes.
Petitioner should not be found fault for presenting words from ‘Manusmriti’ that degrade women
The court quashed the private complaint against Thol. Thirumavalavan, who was accused of making derogatory remarks about Hindu women in a YouTube video, stating that his speech was based on the book “Manu Smriti” and did not constitute hate speech or any of the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 509 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The court found no evidence to support the allegations and concluded that the petitioner did not intend to degrade the reputation of Indian women.
As per Section 323 of Cr.P.C the Magistrate before signing judgment may commit the case if the same has to try by court of Sessions
The Hon’ble High court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal case against K. Kalyanasundaram, proprietor of M/s. Emkay Bio Products, who was the accused of manufacturing substandard drugs [“not of standard quality”]. Complaint lodged was under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(i) r/w Section 17-B (d) punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found that the drugs, tested by both the Government Analyst and the Central Drugs Laboratory, did not meet the required standards. The petitioner’s arguments about cognizance, procedural delays and storage conditions affecting the drug quality were not accepted, and the court ruled that these issues should be addressed during the trial. Consequently, the criminal proceedings will continue in the Sessions Court.
In the light of investigation order freezing the account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed by the police
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fifth respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.07.2024 by defreezing the petitioner’s account bearing Account No: 50100456613718 and IFSC Code: HDFC0004221 and releasing the entire amount of Rs.9,69,580/- plus the amount of Rs.2,48,835/- held by the fifth respondent.
High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings if the allegations taken in its entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused
This Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging the High Court’s dismissal of an application for quashing an FIR in a matrimonial dispute/cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the need for specificity in allegations, noting that vague accusations against family members without concrete evidence can lead to misuse of legal processes, resulting in unnecessary harassment of innocent parties. The Court highlighted the principle that generalized claims in domestic disputes should not result in criminal prosecution, especially when family members have not been residing in the matrimonial home. Consequently, the appeal was considered in light of these principles, aiming to protect individuals from unjust implications in such cases and Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the case.
