1. Dev Wati v. State of Haryana
Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 319 (1) - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence, though not accused before the Court.
The word “appear” means “clear to the comprehension”, or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with “proved”, and imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof. Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, it requires much stronger evidence than a mere probability of the complicity of the persons against whom the deponent has deposed. The test that has to be applied is of a degree of satisfaction which is more than that of a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the proposed accused. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 7]
Referred to: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 [Constitution Bench]
Facts of the Case
A missing complaint came to be lodged by the brother of the deceased. After two days of such complaint, the dead body of the deceased was found. The deceased had allegedly been threatened by his wife and some of her relatives with respect to the ongoing matrimonial dispute. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as well as a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC were also pending against the deceased. The said proceedings were initiated by the wife of the deceased. In addition to the same, two other criminal cases were also lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 of the IPC. Be that as it may, in short it can be said that there was a serious dispute between the deceased and his wife in which the wife’s relatives were supporting her. On registration of the FIR, though the police had arrested three persons, the investigation report did not contain the names of the appellants herein as accused. It is also to be noted that the postmortem report reveals that it is a case of homicidal death inasmuch as the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs, including the brain and lungs. By the impugned judgment, the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was allowed and consequently the appellants herein were summoned by the Sessions Court to face trial in Sessions Case No. 54/2010.
Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 715
Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 715
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 134 of 2019 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : P.I. Jose
Respondent's Advocate : Sanjay Kumar Visen
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
2. Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd.
Customs Act, 1962 - Ss. 112 (a), 114AA & 125 - Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - S. 11 (8) & (9) - Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 - R. 17 (2) - Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 - Rule 15(1)(2) - Multi-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs) - Violation of the Foreign Trade Policy - Redemption Fine - Consignment released for Re-export only - Penalty was imposed on the Directors - The Multi-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs) were not prohibited but restricted items for import.
Section 125 of the Customs Act vests discretion in the authority to levy fine in lieu of confiscation. The MFDs were not prohibited but restricted items for import. A harmonious reading of the statutory provisions of the Foreign Trade Act and Section 125 of the Customs Act will therefore not detract from the redemption of such restricted goods imported without authorisation upon payment of the market value. There will exist a fundamental distinction between what is prohibited and what is restricted. We therefore find no error with the conclusion of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court that the respondent was entitled to redemption of the consignment on payment of the market price at the reassessed value by the customs authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Section 125 of the Customs Act vests discretion in the authority to levy fine in lieu of confiscation. The MFDs were not prohibited but restricted items for import. A harmonious reading of the statutory provisions of the Foreign Trade Act and Section 125 of the Customs Act will therefore not detract from the redemption of such restricted goods imported without authorisation upon payment of the market value. There will exist a fundamental distinction between what is prohibited and what is restricted. We therefore find no error with the conclusion of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court that the respondent was entitled to redemption of the consignment on payment of the market price at the reassessed value by the customs authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 - Rule 3(1)(23) & 15 - “other wastes” - Multi-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs).
Rule 15 of the Waste Management Rules dealing with illegal traffic, provides that import of “other wastes” shall be deemed illegal if it is without permission from the Central Government under the Rules and is required to be reexported. Significantly the Customs Act does not provide for reexport. The Central Government under the Foreign Trade Policy has not prohibited but restricted the import subject to authorisation. The High Court therefore rightly held that the MFDs having a utility period, the Extended Producer Responsibility would arise only after the utility period was over. In any event, the Ewaste Rules 2016 certificate had since been issued to the respondents by the Central Pollution Control Board before the goods have been cleared. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
In the statutory scheme of the Foreign Trade Act as discussed, we further find no error in the penultimate direction to the respondents for deposit of bond without sureties for 90% of the enhanced valuation of the goods leaving it to the DGFT to decide whether confiscation needs to be ordered or release be granted on redemption at the market value, in which event the respondents shall be entitled to set off. The appeals are dismissed.
Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 686
Case Number : C.A. No. 1057 of 2019 24-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 1057 of 2019 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
3. Munishamappa v. State of Karnataka
Penal Code 1860 - Ss. 143, 148, 323, 324 & 302 r/w. 149 - Explosive Substances Act 1908 - Ss. 3, 4 and 5.
Penal Code 1860 - S. 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object - Once a common object of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not necessary that all persons who form the unlawful assembly must be demonstrated to have committed the overt act. The common object is ascertained from considering the acts of its members and on the basis of all surrounding circumstances.
Penal Code 1860 - S. 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object - Once a common object of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not necessary that all persons who form the unlawful assembly must be demonstrated to have committed the overt act. The common object is ascertained from considering the acts of its members and on the basis of all surrounding circumstances.
The common object within the meaning of Section 149 is evident from the genesis of the incident, the manner in which the accused returned after the initial altercation armed with lethal weapons and the nature of the injuries which were inflicted in concert.
Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 515 : 2019 (1) SCALE 721
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 96 - 97 of 2011 24-01-2019
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 96 - 97 of 2011 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T. Harish Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Somiran Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 203
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1016 of 2010 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Radhakrishnan
Respondent's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheswari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 749
Case Number : C.A. No. 1746 of 2010 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vikas Mehta
Respondent's Advocate : Rakesh K. Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
4. Chakarai @ Chakaravarthi v. State Rep by Inspector of Police
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Extra Judicial Confession of the Accused - Circumstances of motive, abduction by accused, conspiracy and recovery are not proved beyond reasonable doubt - The extra-judicial confession gives an impression that the same has been generated to make the courts believe the case against the appellant. The extra-judicial confession is suspiciously full of facts, and graphically discloses the antecedents of Accused No.1, the situation of his house and what happened prior to the incident in question and thereafter. It is recorded in nearly five full pages, and not only speaks about the motive to kill, but also gives graphic details of how each of the accused attacked the deceased - the extra-judicial confession placed on record cannot be relied upon.Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 203
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1016 of 2010 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Radhakrishnan
Respondent's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheswari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
5. Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Agricultural Produce Mkt.
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Maharashtra) - S. 2(1)(a) - Interpretation of the term “Agricultural Produce” - “edible oil”, “Vanaspati” and “sugar” are agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(1) (a) of the Marketing Act.Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 749
Case Number : C.A. No. 1746 of 2010 24-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vikas Mehta
Respondent's Advocate : Rakesh K. Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
6. Assam Public Works v. Union of India
National Register of Citizens - Both the processes i.e. the preparation of final NRC and the election should receive equal importance and proceeded with simultaneously without one affecting the other.
Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 746
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 24-01-2019
For Parties : Mr. Prateek Hajela, State Coordinator, NRC, Assam – in-person State 2 Mr./Ms. Arna Das, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr./Ms. A. Chaliha, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Adv. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Khaddam Hussain, Adv. Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jawad Tariq, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR Mr. Avijit roy, AOR for M/s Corporate Law Group, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, AOR Mr. Shavant Vijay, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR 3 Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Mr. A.S. Tapader, Adv. Mr. A.K. Talukdar, Adv. Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. Vivek Sankar, Adv. Mr. B.D. Jha, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, AOR Ms. Preeti Jha, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Jha, Adv.
Bench : Ranjan Gogoi (CJI) & Rohinton Fali Nariman, J
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 444
Case Number : C.A. No. 6308 of 2013 24-01-2019
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S.Choudhari,Adv. Ms. Surabhi Guleria,Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kolte,Adv. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Majithia,Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv. Ms. Deepa M, Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Anoop Kandari,Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR
Bench : Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2009 24-01-2019
For Parties : Mr. Prateek Hajela, State Coordinator, NRC, Assam – in-person State 2 Mr./Ms. Arna Das, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr./Ms. A. Chaliha, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Adv. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Khaddam Hussain, Adv. Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jawad Tariq, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR Mr. Avijit roy, AOR for M/s Corporate Law Group, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, AOR Mr. Shavant Vijay, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR 3 Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Mr. A.S. Tapader, Adv. Mr. A.K. Talukdar, Adv. Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. Vivek Sankar, Adv. Mr. B.D. Jha, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, AOR Ms. Preeti Jha, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Jha, Adv.
Bench : Ranjan Gogoi (CJI) & Rohinton Fali Nariman, J
7. Gopinath v. Harischandra
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Act, 1974 - Section 42 - there was no challenge to the regular selections made during the pendency of the writ petition by G or anyone else. When two regular principals have already joined and worked during the period when the writ petition remained pending, High Court committed error in directing for reinstatement of G with 50% back wages. Direction of reinstatement itself was unfounded. Looking to the very nature of the appointment of G who was only an Incharge, Principal in view of the subsequent development as noticed above, there was no question of direction of reinstatement of G on the post of Incharge Principal. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 444
Case Number : C.A. No. 6308 of 2013 24-01-2019
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S.Choudhari,Adv. Ms. Surabhi Guleria,Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kolte,Adv. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Majithia,Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv. Ms. Deepa M, Kulkarni,Adv. Mr. Anoop Kandari,Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR
Bench : Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.
8. Raju Ambadas Gangekar v. State of Maharashtra
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 & 325 r/w. 34 - Police Act 1951 (Bombay) - Ss. 37 & 135 - Since the incident had been preceded by a quarrel, the case would not attract the provisions of Section 302.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 768
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1961 of 2009 24-01-2019
Bench : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv. Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv.