Major Legal Judgements (2023-2024) - 3 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

September 2024

Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal  

• Date of Judgement/Order: 29.08.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala 

Case In Brief:

• Sonali Karmakar and Samir Karmarkar (appellant No. 2) were married in March 2003 and had a son born on 4th September, 2004. 
• On 2nd May, 2006, Sonali committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. 
• An FIR was lodged by Sonali's brother on 7th May, 2006, alleging harassment by her in-laws related to dowry demands. 
• The Trial Court convicted the sister-in-law (appellant No. 1), husband (appellant No. 2), and mother-in-law under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The High Court upheld both the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 
• During the pendency of the appeal, the mother-in-law (appellant No. 3) passed away, and the case against her stands abated. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 304B (dowry death) for all appellants due to insufficient evidence connecting the cruelty and harassment to dowry demands. 
• The Court acquitted appellant No. 1 (sister-in-law) of all charges, finding no credible evidence of her involvement in the crime. 
• The Court upheld the conviction of appellant No. 2 (husband) under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. 
• The Court held that the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of marriage, occurring in the matrimonial home, is insufficient to secure a conviction under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC. The prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty related to dowry demands shortly before her death. 
• The court said that the trial court and High Court committed an error while raising a presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1982. 
• Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 for each count, with sentences to run concurrently. 

Relevant Provision: Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Dowry death. 

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 

Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors 

• Date of Judgement/Order - 10.09.2024 
• Bench Strength - Judges 
• Composition of Bench - Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan 

Case In Brief:

• On 11th September 2017, Rajasthan authorities issued an advertisement for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP). 
• The notification prescribed Graduation with minimum 45% marks and One year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) as a qualification. 
• Candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after 31st August, 2009, were required to secure minimum 50 percent marks at graduation level. 
• The appellant, who had taken B.Ed admission on 23rd October, 2009, was denied appointment for not meeting the 50% requirement in graduation. 
• The appellant contended that other candidates from the same batch who were admitted to B.Ed before the cut-off date were granted appointments without the 50% requirement. 
• The appellant's writ petition and subsequent appeal were dismissed by the High Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court held that there cannot be discrimination amongst a homogeneous class of candidates based on their date of admission to the same course in the same academic session. 
• The Court observed that it would be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10. 
• The Court relied on the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ankul Singhal,2021 which was approved by the Supreme Court. 
• The Court noted the NCTE notification dated 13th November, 2019, which stated that the minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those who had taken admission to B.Ed prior to 29th July, 2011. 
• The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the authorities to treat the appellant's appointment as regular. 
• The Court ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with consequential benefits, excluding back wages for the period not worked, but including pay fitment. 

Relevant Provision:

• Article 14 of Constitution of India,1950 deals with Equality before law.
• The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 

Mubarak Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Date of Judgement/Order: 05.09.2024
• Bench Strength: 2 Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Case In Brief:

• The accused was charged under Section 304B of the IPC, which pertains to dowry death.
• He had been in custody since his arrest on December 1, 2017, totaling 7 years.
• The accused applied for bail due to this prolonged detention.

Verdict

• The Court ruled that such a long period of continuous detention violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Since the State did not ensure a timely conclusion of the trial, the Court found grounds for granting bail to the petitioner, who was accused in connection with his wife's death.
• Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused.

Relevant Provision:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Ensures the right to life and personal liberty for all individuals.

CN Shantha Kumar v. MS Srinivas 

• Date of Judgement/Order – 05.09.2024
• Bench Strength – Judges
• Composition of Bench – Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhati

Case In Brief:

• The case involved proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA), where the trial court convicted the appellant.
• However, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, acquitting the accused.
• The High Court, upon receiving a revision petition, overturned the Appellate Court's acquittal and ordered the appellant's conviction.
• This decision by the High Court is what is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Section 401 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction during revision.
• Therefore, the Court deemed the High Court's decision as unsustainable.
• If the High Court believed there was a wrongful acquittal, it could not order a conviction in revision.

Relevant Provision:

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 401 (3). This section prevents the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into a conviction.

August 2024

Prem Lal Anand & Ors v. Narendra Kumar & Ors. 

• Date of Judgement/Order – 07.08.2024
• Bench Strength – Judges
• Composition of Bench – Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol

Case In Brief:

• The claimant-appellant No.1 and his wife were riding a motorcycle through the village Meharauli when they encountered two tractors being driven recklessly.
• This led to an accident causing the claimant severe injuries, including a broken jaw and leg fractures.
• Tragically, the claimant's wife died instantly due to the crash.
• The couple operated a business together, earning Rs. 5,000/- monthly from M/s Sonali Fabrics.
• Following his wife's death, the claimant lost the entire business, which had previously made profits of Rs. 60,000 in 1994 and Rs. 50,000 in 1993.
• Seeking Rs. 12,00,000 in compensation, the claimant initially approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
• After the Tribunal's decision, the claimant appealed to the High Court for a higher compensation amount.
• The claimants then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's ruling.

Verdict:

• The court examined the ideas of composite and contributory compensation.
• The evidence showed that the tractor was moving slowly, which led the first appellant to attempt an overtaking maneuver.
• However, the second tractor's driver was found to be speeding and driving from the wrong side, causing the collision.
• The court clarified that overtaking does not automatically imply rashness or negligence.
• Therefore, if the offending vehicle was proven to be driven recklessly, the appellant's act of overtaking would not make him partially at fault.
• As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal in this case.

Relevant Provision:

• Law of Tort – Tort of Negligence
• Negligence involves failing to fulfill a duty, either by not doing something a reasonable person would do or by doing something a reasonable person would avoid.

The State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Bhupendra Singh 

• Date of Judgement/Order: 08.08.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah 

Case In Brief:

• The respondent was initially an Inspector, later promoted to Assistant Registrar, and considered for promotion to Deputy Registrar. 
• He faced allegations of allowing the construction of a godown without proper technical approval, leading to his demotion back to Inspector. 
• A departmental inquiry was launched against him in 1979, and his appeal for promotion was rejected. 
• He was suspended pending the inquiry for various alleged irregularities. 
• The suspension order was contested before a single judge, resulting in a prospective stay. 
• In 1985, he was dismissed following a new inquiry. 
• In 1993, a High Court single judge annulled the dismissal, deeming him eligible for promotion with back benefits. 
• This decision was upheld by a Division Bench and later contested in the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Court referenced the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao (1963), emphasizing that the High Court's role under Article 226 is not equivalent to an appeal. 
• It clarified that the High Court should not re-evaluate evidence or make independent findings but should act when there is significant infirmity in a tribunal's order. 
• In this case, the Court determined that there was no basis for interference. 

Relevant Provision: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

• Grants High Courts the authority to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and other purposes. 
• High Courts can exercise this power regardless of the location of the government or authority involved. 
• Ensures fair process in interim orders and upholds the Supreme Court's powers under Article 32. 

Daulat Singh v. State of MP 

• Date of Judgement/Order: 30.07.2024 
• Bench Strength: judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Case In Brief:

• The petitioner was convicted under Section 7(i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 
• The conviction was appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge but was dismissed. 
• The petitioner then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which also dismissed the appeal. 
• Seeking relief, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting exemption from surrender due to health issues (hepatitis). 
• The High Court rejected this application, citing Rule 48 of Chapter 10 of its 2008 Rules. 
• Undeterred, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's inherent power to grant such exemptions. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court referenced the case of Vivek Rai & Anr. v. High Court of Jharkhand (2015) to emphasize the proper interpretation of Section 482 of the CrPC. 
• The Court found the hepatitis claim unsubstantiated due to the absence of a laboratory report. 
• Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 482: This section preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of court processes, or secure justice. 
• Rule 48 of the 2008 Rules: This rule stipulates that a memorandum of appeal or revision petition against conviction must declare the convicted person's custody status or surrender after conviction. In cases where the sentence has been suspended, the memorandum must state the suspension details. 

Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India 

• Date of Judgement/Order: 13th August 2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih 

Case Overview:

• The appellant was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 
• The chargesheet referred to the appellant as respondent no. 2. 
• Witness statements in the chargesheet alleged that: 
• The appellant's wife owned Ahmad Palace, and the appellant secretly rented the first floor to Athar Parwez, accused no. 1. 
• The premises were used for objectionable activities related to the Popular Front of India (PFI). 
• Discussions involved PFI expansion, member training, Muslim empowerment, and targeting individuals critical of Islam. 
• Rs. 25,000 was transferred to the appellant's son's account from a co-accused. 
• The appellant was seen removing goods from the premises before a police raid. 
• The appellant and co-accused applied for bail, which was initially rejected. 
• The Patna High Court granted bail to the co-accused but denied it to the appellant when they appealed. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

• There were discrepancies between the witness statements in the chargesheet and those before the magistrate. 
• The witness did not implicate the appellant in the alleged offence. 
• There was no evidence linking the appellant to the directed attacks in the chargesheet. 
• The Rs. 25,000 transferred to the appellant's son was rent advance, not suspicious. 
• The goods removed before the police raid were not specified in the chargesheet and had no connection to the alleged attacks. 
• The Supreme Court found no evidence of the appellant's involvement in the alleged crime. 

Legal Principles:

• Bail is generally the rule, and imprisonment is the exception. 
• Even in cases with stringent bail conditions, the principle that bail is the default should apply. 
• Denying bail in deserving cases would violate rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects life and personal liberty. 

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant based on the lack of evidence and discrepancies in the witness statements. 

July 2024

Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh

• Date of Judgement/Order– 25.07.2024
• Bench Strength–3 Judges
• Composition of Bench–Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justise Augustine George-Masih

Case In Brief:

• The prosecution claimed that the appellant, the husband of the deceased wife, was guilty of murdering her. 
• It was alleged that the appellant suspected his wife of cheating, which led to arguments between them. 
• The appellant's wife was discovered dead in their home around 5 PM on April 29, 2006. 
• The prosecution charged the appellant with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). 
• It was claimed that the cause of death was strangulation. 
• The defense argued that there was no direct evidence to support the allegations and that the case relied on the "last seen" theory. 
• The defense also contended that there were no witnesses to corroborate the claims and that the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime during the time of death. 
• Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the appellant guilty of murdering his wife and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that for invoking Section 106 of the IEA, it was necessary to establish the accused's knowledge of the crime. 
• There was no evidence proving that the accused was present at the crime scene when his wife was allegedly murdered. 
• Witnesses indicated that when the appellant's wife was found dead, he was informed of her condition, suggesting he arrived after her death. 
• This finding indicated that the burden of proof could not be shifted to the accused. 
• It also led to the conclusion that the "last seen" theory was not applicable. 
• The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the High Court and the Trial Court, ruling in favor of the appellant. 
• The Court determined that the prosecution failed to establish any murder charges against the appellant under the IPC. 
• Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the prosecution did not examine the accused as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 

Illustrations:

• When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. 
• A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

• Power to examine the accused
• In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court— 
• may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; 
• shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: 
• Proviso. In a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). 
• No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). 
• The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. 
• The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. 
• The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defense Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. 

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Versus M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors.

Case Details

• Date of Judgment: July 22, 2024 
• Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar 

Case Background:

• The case involves a dispute between flat buyers (complainants) and a builder (respondent) regarding the delay in handing over possession of flats. 
• The complainants filed a consumer complaint against the builder for deficiency in service and delay in possession. 
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) initially heard the case. 
• The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement but allowed the builder to decide whether to participate in the proceedings. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Court ruled that when a party's right to file a written statement is forfeited, they cannot indirectly introduce their case through evidence or written submissions. 
• Parties can participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses but cannot bring in new pleadings or evidence. 
• The Court found that the NCDRC improperly allowed the defendant to file written submissions, but this did not materially impact the outcome. 
• The Court modified the NCDRC's method for calculating compensation for delayed possession of flats, setting the due date for possession based on the terms of the construction agreement. 
• The Court upheld the NCDRC's decision to award compensation at 6% interest from the due date of possession until the date possession was offered. 

Relevant Provision:

• Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with written statements and outlines the timeline and conditions for filing them. 

Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors

Supreme Court Ruling on Taxation of Mineral Rights (25.07.2024)

• A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressed the constitutional distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States regarding the taxation of mineral rights. 
• The core issue involved Entry 50 of List II in the Seventh Schedule, which pertains to taxes on mineral rights. 
• The Court clarified that royalty is not a tax but a contractual payment under a mining lease, overruling the earlier judgment in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990). 
• The bench reaffirmed that taxing entries in the Constitution should be interpreted strictly and separately, rejecting the idea that Parliament's residual powers could confer taxation authority over mineral rights. 
• States have the authority to tax mineral-bearing lands under Entry 49 of List II, which covers taxes on lands and buildings, including those with mineral resources. 
• The Court's decision emphasized that this power is not limited by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 
• The ruling aimed to resolve the conflict between previous judgments and clarify the scope of legislative powers concerning mineral taxation. 

Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

• Date of Judgment/Order - 30.07.2024 
• Bench Strength - Judges 
• Composition of Bench - Justice CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra 

Case In Brief:

• The Advocate Act 1961 (AA) was made to organize the rules for advocates and set up the Bar Council and State Bar Councils. 
• Section 6 of the AA explains what State Bar Councils do. 
• Section 7 talks about the duties of the Bar Council of India. 
• Section 17 requires State Bar Councils to keep a list of advocates. 
• Section 24 sets the qualifications for becoming an advocate. 
• State Bar Councils charge enrollment fees to admit law graduates, as per Section 24(1)(f) of the AA. 
• They also impose various other fees like library fund contributions, administration fees, and identity card fees, leading to significant variations in total fees charged. 
• These fees can range from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 42,000 at the time of enrollment. 
• The Petitioner challenged these fees under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing they violated Section 24 of the AA. 
• The Supreme Court took over similar cases from the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that high enrollment fees burden newcomers due to limited resources. 
• It highlighted Section 24(1)(f), which specifies the SBCs' fees for enrollment. 
• The Court ruled that no extra fees should be charged by SBCs under miscellaneous fees. 
• SBCs cannot impose additional charges as part of the enrollment fee. 
• While Bar Councils can levy other charges, they must not be included in enrollment fees. 
• The Court also stated that exorbitant fees infringe on the rights to profession, dignity, and equality, disproportionately affecting marginalized lawyers. 
• The ruling is progressive, and no fees need to be refunded. 
• Enrollment fees were capped at Rs. 750 for the general category and Rs. 125 for SC/ST advocates. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 24 of The Advocate Act 1961 (AA) - Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll

A person is qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfills the following conditions: 

• (a) Citizenship: He is a citizen of India or a national of another country where Indian citizens are allowed to practice law. 
• (b) Age: He has completed 21 years of age. 
• (c) Law Degree: He has obtained a law degree from a recognized university in India or abroad, or is a barrister called to the Bar before December 31, 1976. 
• (d) Other Conditions: He fulfills any other conditions specified by the State Bar Council. 
• (e) Fees: He has paid the required enrolment fee and stamp duty, if applicable. 
• (f) Waiver for Vakils and Pleaders: Vakils or pleaders may be admitted as advocates on the State roll if they meet certain conditions. 
• (g) Special Cases: Individuals with specific qualifications or entitlements may be admitted as advocates on the State roll if they fulfill certain conditions. 

June 2024

Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors. 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 17.05.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Case In Brief:

• The case involves the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
• Between 1957 and 2006, various notifications were issued for acquiring lands, and awards were passed to fix compensation. 
• In some instances, compensation amounts were deposited in the treasury, while in others, possession could not be taken by government entities because landowners challenged the proceedings and obtained a stay. 
• Later, the 1894 Act was replaced by the 2013 Act, which introduced Section 24. This section stated that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier regime would be considered lapsed in certain cases, such as when compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken. 
• Section 24 was interpreted in several judgments, including Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki (2014), Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018), and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). 
• In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), a 5-judge bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki (2014). 
• Following this decision, Delhi Government entities (DDC, DMRC) filed appeals against Delhi High Court orders that declared acquisition proceedings as lapsed based on Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association. 
• Since most cases were filed after the limitation period expired, the court needed to determine whether the delay could be condoned due to a subsequent change in law. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court noted that the law of limitation is based on the principle that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. 
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, gives the court the discretion to extend the limitation period if the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient cause for not filing within the prescribed period. 
• The court emphasized two aspects of Section 5: (a) whether a sufficient cause has been established, and (b) whether this cause was shown for not filing within the prescribed period. 
• The court rejected the condonation of delay for several reasons: 
• First, the appellants had to prove diligence during the prescribed period and that a sufficient cause arose within that period. 
• Instead of demonstrating a cause within the limitation period, they were using an event after the period to justify the delay. 
• Second, a party should not benefit from its deliberate inaction during the limitation period. 
• Third, allowing a subsequent change of law as a ground for condonation would lead to a situation where petitioners could approach the court whenever a judgment they relied on was overruled, creating a lack of finality in proceedings. 
• Fourth, when a case is overruled, it only affects the binding nature of the precedent, and the dispute between the parties is still considered settled by the overruled case. 
• However, the court ultimately allowed the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds of public interest, while not accepting other arguments. 

Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 08.06.2024 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan 

Case In Brief:

• The petitioner had been in custody for two years related to an FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
• The petition sought bail from the Court. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court stated that not finishing a trial in a reasonable time, leading to long imprisonment, violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court noted that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and was not inclined to consider the Investigating Officer as a panch witness. 
• As a result, bail was granted in this case. 

Relevant Provision:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty. 

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr v. M/s BSK Realtors LLP & Anr

• Date of Judgement/Order. 17.05.2024 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Case In Brief:

• The case involves the land acquisition process initiated by the Delhi Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the planned development of Delhi. 
• The 1894 Act was later replaced by the 2013 Act, which introduced reforms and amended Section 24. 
• Section 24 has been interpreted in various Supreme Court judgments. The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions from certain affected landowners, declaring the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court observed that res judicata is a technical principle preventing the same parties from relitigating issues already determined. 
• However, the Court held that res judicata does not apply rigidly when larger public interest is at stake. 
• The doctrine of merger was also discussed, with the Court stating it is not of universal application. 
• The exception to the doctrine of merger is the exercise of extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. 
• The Court invoked Article 142, considering public interest and avoiding irreversible consequences. 

XYZ v. State of Karnataka 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 10.06.2023 
• Bench Strength. 2 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih. 

Case In Brief:

• Respondent no. 2 is accused of sexually assaulting a minor. 
• The Karnataka High Court had previously stayed a notice for a medical examination of the accused. 
• A medical report and the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, implicate the accused. 
• The court vacated the stay by the Karnataka High Court. 
• Respondent no. 2 is ordered to undergo a medical examination as part of the ongoing investigation. 
• The Investigating Officer must conduct the examination following established procedures and respecting the accused's rights. 
• This order overrides any conflicting directives from lower courts. 

Verdict:

• The bench noted that the accused's refusal to cooperate with the medical examination indicates a lack of willingness to assist the investigation. 
• The court emphasized that the accused must comply with Section 41-A of the CrPC and undergo the medical examination as directed by the Investigating Officer. 
• The accused cannot raise concerns about the medical facility without valid reasons. 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlines the procedure for issuing a notice of appearance to a person suspected of committing a cognizable offence. 
• The notice directs the person to appear before the police officer or at a specified location. 
• The person must comply with the notice, and failure to do so may result in arrest.  

May 2024

Rajendra S/O Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra

• Date of Judgement/Order: 15.05.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Abhay S. Oka 

Case Overview:

• Rekha, a police constable in Ambajogai, was allegedly mistreated by her husband, Rajendra (the Appellant), and his family. Rajendra, an army man, was visiting home when the incident occurred. 
• On the day of the incident, Rekha was reportedly beaten by her husband and brother-in-law, tied up, and then set on fire by Rajendra. Neighbors took her to the hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded, leading to an FIR against Rajendra and others under various sections of the IPC. 
• Initially charged with attempted murder and other offenses, Section 302 (murder) was added after Rekha's death. Rajendra, his father, mother, and sister were accused, while the juvenile brother-in-law was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. 
• The Trial Court found Rajendra guilty of murder, and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the dying declaration's evidentiary value, reiterating principles from past cases. 
• The Court stated that a dying declaration could be the basis for conviction if deemed true and voluntary, without needing further corroboration. 
• Regarding multiple dying declarations, the Court highlighted that inconsistencies should be assessed for their materiality and each declaration should be evaluated on its own merits. 
• Despite inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' accounts, the Court found alignment with the core of Rekha's dying declaration and medical records, leading to the conclusion that she was fit to make the declaration. 
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Dying declarations are relevant statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or circumstances leading to it, regardless of their expectation of death at the time of making the statement. 
• Section 26(a) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhniyam, 2023: This provision mirrors the dying declaration principle in the Indian Evidence Act. 

Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan

• Date of Judgement/Order: 14.05.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice J. B. Pardiwala 

Case In Brief: FIR was registered against the appellant and two co-accused under the NDPS Act. 

• Contraband Seizure: The appellant, as the registered owner of the dumper from which contraband was seized, was implicated in the case. 
• Co-Accused Arrested: The co-accused were arrested, but the appellant remained absconding initially. 
• Trial Outcome: The trial resulted in the acquittal of the co-accused. 
• Dumper Confiscation: The Trial Court ordered the confiscation of the dumper and auctioned it, despite acquitting the co-accused. 
• Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the trial court violated Section 63 of the NDPS Act by confiscating the dumper without giving him a hearing, as the registered owner. 
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's argument, stating that the trial court acted improperly. 
• Section 63 of NDPS Act: This section outlines the procedure for confiscations in trials under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for a hearing and a waiting period before confiscation. 
• Court's Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the lower court's order, reinforcing the importance of following legal procedures in confiscation cases. 

Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors.

• Date of Judgement/Order: 13.05.2024 
• Bench Strength: Judges 
• Composition of Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha 

Case Overview:

• The accused (Respondents) ordered 47 Kerala Model Gold Chains from the Appellant, who was a deliveryman for PR Gold. 
• In exchange for the chains, the accused promised to provide gold bars of equal value. 
• The exchange allegedly occurred on December 20, 2022, after which the Appellant discovered the gold bars were fake. 
• A first information report (FIR) was filed, leading to an investigation. 
• During the investigation, Rs. 19,83,036/- was found deposited in the bank accounts of Accused 1 and 3. 
• On January 9, 2023, the investigating officer requested to freeze their bank accounts. 
• The Respondents filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to unfreeze their accounts. 
• The High Court granted their request, invalidating the seizure order because it was not promptly reported to the Magistrate. 

Supreme Court's Consideration:

• The Supreme Court examined whether delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate invalidates the seizure order. 
• Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), amended in 1978, requires prompt reporting of seizures to the Magistrate. 
• The Court noted that compliance with Section 102(3) is not necessary for the validity of Section 102(1) powers. 
• The obligation to inform the Magistrate is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising power under Section 102(1). 
• The Court compared this provision to Section 157 of Cr.P.C, highlighting that neither provision specifies consequences for non-compliance. 
• The Court concluded that delay in reporting the seizure may impact the prosecution's case regarding the details of the seizure but does not invalidate the investigation. 
• If the delay is adequately explained, the matter is settled; otherwise, departmental action may be recommended against the official. 

Court's Decision:

• The Court ruled against re-freezing the bank accounts, as the accounts had already been defrosted and operated by the Respondents. 
• The amount of Rs. 19,83,036/- had likely been withdrawn by the Respondents. 
• To serve justice and protect the prosecution's interests, the Respondents were required to execute a bond agreeing to deposit the withdrawn amount before the jurisdictional Court if found guilty. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 102(3) of CrPC - Power of Police Officer to seize certain property: Police officers must promptly report seizures to the Magistrate. If the seized property cannot be easily transported or stored, officers may give custody to a person who agrees to produce the property before the Court when required. 
• This provision is also found in Section 106(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 

Bhikchand S/O Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through Lrs. v. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through Lrs.

• Date of Judgement/Order - 14.05.2024 
• Bench Strength -. Judges 
• Composition of Bench - Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Case In Brief:

Dhanraj, husband of the original plaintiff Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale, lent Rs. 8,000 to the original defendant in 1969. 

• When the defendant failed to repay, the plaintiff sued for Rs. 10,880 (Rs. 8,000 principal + Rs. 2,880 interest) plus 12% interest per annum. 
• On 15.02.1982, the court partly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the principal, pre-suit interest, and 12% interest until repayment. 
• The plaintiff appealed for more, and the defendant cross-appealed. 
• During this, the plaintiff sought execution in a different court due to jurisdiction issues. 
• The appeal was dismissed, reducing the total amount. 
• The plaintiff executed the decree, buying the defendant's property in auction. 
• In 1990, the defendant sought restitution, claiming the sale should be reversed due to decree changes. 
• Courts denied this, stating the defendant hadn't deposited any amount during the original decree execution. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court ruled that if the decree holder is the auction purchaser, the sale is invalid if the decree is later set aside. 
• A third party buying property in court auction with knowledge of pending appeal against the decree cannot resist restitution. 
• The Executing Court failed to determine sufficient property for attachment, causing injustice to the judgment debtor. 
• The Court emphasized that a decree for debt recovery should not lead to exploitation by selling all the debtor's property. 
• The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's 2017 order and the appellant’s application under Section 144 of CPC. 

Relevant Provision:

Section 144 of CPC - Application for Restitution - 

• When a decree is changed or canceled in an appeal or revision, the court that issued it will restore the parties to their original position as much as possible. 
• This may involve refunding costs, paying interest, damages, compensation, and other related payments. 
• The court that issued the decree is considered the court of first instance if the decree is changed in an appeal or revision.