5 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 25, 2019

1. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 125 : 2019 (2) SCALE 5
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 99 of 2018 25-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Udit Kishan and Associates

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

2. Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India

Constitution of India - Article 32 - No writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer.

If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance in relation to any of his contractual personal rights flowing from any service conditions or any other agreement with the respondent No.12 – Company, his legal remedy lies in filing Civil Suit or take recourse to any other civil law remedy for adjudication and enforcement of his rights qua respondent No.12 – Company or anyone claiming through them as the case may be. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the remedy for agitating any such grievance. [Para 16 & 17]

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 15 : 2019 (2) SCALE 125
Case Number : W.P. (Crl. ) No. 142 of 2018 25-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

3. High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, thr. its Registrar General v. P. Murali Mohana Reddy

Rules of Andhra Pradesh State High Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad hoc appointment 2001 - Rule 6 of the Rules prescribes 30% qualifying marks for SC and ST category in written examination. Thus, the candidates were required to obtain such qualifying marks in the written examination. At the same time they were also mandated to secure consolidated qualifying marks (i.e. both in written plus interview) as prescribed.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 5 : 2019 (2) SCALE 115
Case Number : C.A. No. 73 - 74 of 2019 25-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Sudhanshu S. Choudhari

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

4. Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd), MVC v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Acts

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 386, 391 and 482

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 read with 34

Subjects

Appellate court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.

Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of the Appellate Court.

Criminal P.C. 1973 - Ss. 391 - When Statute grants right to appeal to an accused, he has right to take all steps and take benefit of all powers of the Appellate Court in the ends of the justice. In a criminal case Appellate Court has to consider as to whether conviction of the accused is sustainable or the appellant has made out a case for acquittal. The endeavour of all Courts has to reach to truth and justice.

The case of the complainant also has been that it is only after execution of the Trust Deed that talks regarding sale of the agricultural land was initiated. Trust Deed and the Resolution, which are foundation and basis for the start of the process of the sale of the land were documents, which ought to have been permitted to be proved to arrive at any conclusion to find out the criminal intent, if any, on the part of the appellant.

Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The key words in Section 391(1) are “if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary”. The word “necessary” used in Section 391(1) is to mean necessary for deciding the appeal. Power to take additional evidence under Section 391 is, thus, with an object to appropriately decide the appeal by the Appellate Court to secure ends of justice. There are no fetters on the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of the Appellate Court. All powers are conferred on the Court to secure ends of justice. The ultimate object of judicial administration is to secure ends of justice. Court exists for rendering justice to the people.

When it becomes necessary to take additional evidence, cannot be enlisted or enumerated in any fixed formula. It depends on facts of each and every case to come to a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to take additional evidence or not.

Scope and ambit of Section 391 Cr.P.C.

A wide discretion is conferred on the Appellate Courts and the additional evidence may be necessary for a variety of reasons. Additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because there would be failure of justice without it.

Referred in:-

Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1965 SC 1887 (Hidayatullah, J.)

Question of Law

A. Whether the Session Judge committed error in not exercising power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to permit the appellant to lead additional evidence is a question to be answered. 

The Appellate Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and has committed error in rejecting the applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

B. Whether the High Court committed error in not exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as to secure the ends of justice?

The first observation of the High Court is that filing of additional evidence at such a belated stage. When the Appellate Court has been given power to lead additional evidence, the observation that it is belated stage was uncalled for. Further, the observation of the High Court that application was filed with some ulterior malafide motive. The appellant had already been convicted by the trial court, the charge was cheating the complainant with regard to sale of agricultural land of the trust. Filing of the application before the High Court to accept the certified copy of the Trust Deed and the Resolution and permit the appellant to lead evidence can in no manner be said to be malafide motive of the accused, who had been convicted in the appeal, has right to take all the grounds and also lead additional evidence, which in accordance with the Appellate Court is necessary in deciding the appeal.

The second observation of the High Court is that the application to take additional evidence at the appellate stage is filed by appellant for delaying the decision of the appeal to eternity. When prosecution took twelve years’ time in leading evidence before the trial court and the judgment by trial court was delivered on 07.10.2013, the appeal was filed on 08.10.2013, how can appellant be castigated with the allegation that he intended to delay the appeal to eternity. The observation was unduly misplaced and incorrect.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 18 : 2019 (2) SCALE 104
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 148 of 2019 25-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Abhijat P. Medh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

5. Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 379A - “mobile snatching” - When the mobile phone was allegedly snatched from PW-1, he would have seen the accused only for few seconds. It is doubtful whether he would have been in a position to identify the accused. Having regard to the passage of time between the occurrence and the identification of the accused for the first time in the court by PW-1 becomes highly doubtful. This is more so, when the said mobile phone was recovered only at the behest of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 146 of 2019 25-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Md. Shahid Anwar
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi