|
Name of the case
|
Held
|
|
Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2021 SC 5228
|
Jurisdiction – Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 – Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) –
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities Act), 1989 (SC/ST Act) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). The Dispute arose over rights concerning piece of land.
Trial Court convicted Appellant – Appeal dismissed
vide impugned judgment
Whether jurisdiction of Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising
out of a ‘non-compoundable offence? – If yes, whether the power to quash
proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such
as the SC/ST Act?
The Court held that : Court if satisfied that
underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even
if the felony in question goes unpunished, offence even if covered under a
‘special statute’ would not refrain Courts from exercising their respective
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure
|
|
Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. vs.
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and Ors., 2021 INSC 643
|
In this case the present appeal was preferred
against the judgment whereby writ petition filed by the Respondents was
allowed and First Information Report registered against the Respondents was
set aside, together with proceedings taken up pursuant to the FIR. R1 is a
Commissioner of Income Tax while R2 is her spouse and Member of the
Legislative Assembly and is a Minister in the State government of Andhra
Pradesh. The FIR was registered against the R1 for being in possession
(allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. R2 was
alleged to have abetted the offence. The FIR was registered for offences
punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. High
Court had held that on the basis of the information ascertained from the
‘known sources of income’, the allegations against the Respondents in the FIR
prima facie were unsustainable.
whether the CBI is mandatorily required to conduct
a Preliminary Enquiry before the registration of an FIR in every case
involving claims of alleged corruption against public servants? – Whether the
judgment of the High Court to quash the FIR can be sustained in the present
case?
The Court held that the Appellant is challenging
the very “source” of the Respondents’ income and the questioning
the assets acquired by them based on such income. Hence, at the stage of
quashing of an FIR where the Court only has to ascertain whether the FIR
prima facie makes out the commission of a cognizable offence, reliance on the
documents produced by the Respondents to quash the FIR would be contrary to
fundamental principles of law. The High Court has gone far beyond the ambit
of its jurisdiction by virtually conducting a trial in an effort to absolve
the Respondents
The FIR Cannot be quashed.
|
|
Satbir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana AIR2021SC2627
|
Deceased, who was married to Accused-Appellant
died due to burn injuries. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased
committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her
marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment on account of bringing less dowry by both the Accused. Appellants
were convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 306, Indian Penal
Code. High Court vide impugned judgment in appeal upheld the order of Trial
Court and hence the present appeal by Appellants herein. It was contended
that by Appellants that the possibility of accidental fire was not ruled out
and also prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry.
Lastly, the prosecution also contend to have failed in proving that demand,
if any, was made proximate to the death of the deceased-victim.
Whether conviction as directed against the
Appellants liable to be set aside?
The court held that the High Court and Trial Court
have not committed any error in convicting the Appellants under Section
304-B, Indian Penal Code as the Appellants failed to discharge the burden
under Section 113-B, Evidence Act. However, upon appreciation of facts and
circumstances, offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code not made out
|
|
Ketan Kantilal Seth vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, AIR2022SC4187
|
The present petitions had been filed by
Petitioner/Accused for invoking the power under Section 406 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of criminal cases pending against
him in four different States to one Court. The allegations against the
Petitioner herein and one other accused were that they were the authorized
signatories of the Accused company and while acting in the capacity of
Directors of the said Accused company, they entered into several transactions
dealing with government securities and further sold the said securities
without any authorization. Further, it had also been alleged that the
government securities were not delivered within time and the money raised
thereby had been misappropriated by the Accused persons including the
Petitioner herein. Petitioner had contended that multiple FIRs were
registered against Petitioner and other Accused persons in different States
having similar set of allegations, which had led into multiple trials being
pending before various Trial Courts in different States for adjudication.
Whether criminal cases pending before different
Trial Courts in four States could be transferred to one Trial Court in one
State.
The court held that Considering the common nature
of allegations raised against the Petitioner in all FIRs and criminal
proceedings emanating therefrom which were yet pending before respective
Trial Courts in four States, this court was of the opinion that to meet the
ends of justice and fair trial, the transfer petitions deserve to be allowed.
|
|
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Ors, AIR2022SC3386
|
The Government of India may consider the
introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to
streamline the grant of bails; b) The investigating agencies and their
officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of
the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar; c) Courts
to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code.
Any non-compliance would entitle the Accused for grant of bail; d) State
Governments and Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the
procedure to be followed Under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking
note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018 in Writ
Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 and the standing order issued by the Delhi
Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020; e) There need not be any
insistence of a bail application while considering the application Under
Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code; f) There needs to be a strict
compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in
Siddharth; g) The State and Central Governments to comply with directions
issued by Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special
courts; h) High Courts to find out undertrial prisoners not able to comply
with bail conditions followed by appropriate action in light of Section 440
of the Code, facilitating release; While insisting upon sureties mandate of
Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind; j) To comply with the mandate
of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High
Court as earlier directed in Bhim Singhcase; k) Bail applications ought to be
disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate
otherwise. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of
within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening
application
|
|
Mohammed Zubair vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. AIR2022SC3649
|
The tweets which have been put out by the
Petitioner are the subject matter of the FIRs which have been registered in
Delhi and in Police Stations within different districts in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. All the FIRs, broadly speaking, implicate alleged offences
punishable under the same provisions, namely, Sections 153A, 295A, 298 and
505 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 67 of the IT Act. It is
submitted that in none of the tweets has the Petitioner even remotely used
any language which is improper or which would amount to an offence with
reference to which the provisions of the criminal law could be invoked. On
the contrary, in several of the tweets, the Petitioner had tagged the Uttar
Pradesh Police and had invited action by the law enforcement machinery
consequent on speeches made by other persons which were found to be
objectionable. The gravamen of all the FIRs which have been registered
against the Petitioner essentially remains the same, arising out of the
tweets by the Petitioner. The instrument of criminal law has been used to
harass and silence the voice of the Petitioner which would be apparent from
the manner in which the Petitioner has been made to face successive
proceedings arising out of the FIRs which have been lodged in the State of
Uttar Pradesh; and The Petitioner has a real and genuine apprehension in
regard to the safety and security of his life following the publication of
several tweets which have administered threats and placed a bounty on his
safety. Hence, it has been submitted that in the exercise of its jurisdiction
Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court should quash the FIRs since
none of the tweets on the basis of which FIRs have been registered provokes
hatred towards any community or is derogatory to any religion or a religious
denomination.
The court held that Merely because the complaints
filed against the Petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a
social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from
tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the Petitioner to not
express his opinion – an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an
active participating citizen – would be disproportionate to the purpose of
imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would
tantamount to a gag order against the Petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling
effect on the freedom of speech. According to the Petitioner, he is a
journalist who is the co-founder of a fact checking website and he uses
Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false news and misinformation
in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos. Passing an
order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an
unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the
freedom to practice his profession.
|
|
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vikas Mishra, AIR2023SC1808
|
No accused can be
permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No
accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It
cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/ investigation
is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to
unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to
frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody
interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a
premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial
process
|
|
Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2023 SC 87
|
The provisions of the Cr.P.C. are applicable to
all proceedings under the PMLA including proceedings before the Special
Court, except to the extent they are specifically excluded. Hence, Section 71
of the PMLA providing an overriding effect, has to be construed in tune with
Section 46(1) and Section 65.
|
|
Kush Kalra v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 958/2022
|
The Supreme Court closed a petition challenging a
gender discriminatory provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 taking
note of the fact that the statute’s replacement, the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has removed the provision.
|
|
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet (2024) 4 SCC 469
|
The Bench Comprising Justices
Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan while reversing the acquittal of the
respondent/accused to conviction stated that though under Article 136 of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with an order of
acquittal except when the prosecution’s case proves the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
JURISEDGE
Share post:
Recent years have seen the Indian judiciary deliver several landmark decisions that have significantly shaped the landscape of criminal law especially Cr. These judgments have addressed complex issues, including the scope of constitutional provisions, jurisdictional challenges, and the balancing of individual rights with the needs of justice. The courts have reinforced the importance of custodial interrogation in maintaining judicial integrity, clarified the burden of proof in cases involving serious offenses, and emphasized adherence to procedural safeguards during investigations. Additionally, the judiciary has navigated the challenges of the digital age, particularly concerning the interplay between free speech and criminal law. These decisions collectively highlight the evolving nature of legal interpretations in a modern, complex society.
Share this:
Related
Round-Up: Judgment Series 2020-2024
Welcome to our comprehensive roundup of the Judgment Series for 2020-2024! In this series, we’ve explored the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence through detailed reviews and interpretations of landmark cases. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: High Courts
The High Courts in India have delivered significant rulings relating to constitutional, criminal, administrative matters, etc. This blog post will take a round up of some of the important judgments. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Tax Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Tax Law 2020-2024. The landscape of Tax Law from 2021 to 2024. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Company Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Company Law. The landscape of Company Law from 2020 to 2024 has. read more…
Share this: