Every Document Pertaining To An Election Is Important, All Efforts Should Be Made To Preserve Them

Every vote has its own value, irrespective of its effect in the final outcome and its sanctity should be protected, the Court said.

Listen to this Article

Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same, observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment.

The Court made this observation in the context of an election of a Gram Pradhan in a village in Uttar Pradesh, which was held in 2021. There were disputes regarding the final count of votes polled and the Presiding Officers' records were missing. Therefore, the Court observed that the final counts was in the realm of questionability.

The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort, the Court noted.

While ordering a recount, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh observed :

"The candidates in the election wanting to keep an eye on voting during the day and inspect records of the same is something which cannot be denied to them. If the Presiding Officers' records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability. Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same."

Supreme Court Flags Delay In Amending Calcutta High Court Rule Requiring Division Bench Instead Of Single Judge For Certain Bail Cases

 

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over the delay in amending the Calcutta High Court Rules on the aspect of the strength of the bench hearing bail applications, pointing out that the proposal to amend the Rule has been pending for 12 years.

The issue relates to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the Full Court had on February 20, 2025, decided to amend the Rule, it had only referred the matter to the Rule Committee for drafting the amendment instead of directly implementing the change.

“Though it was resolved that proviso to sub-rule 2 of 1 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules should be suitably amended, instead of passing a resolution of amendment, now the issue has been referred to the Rule Committee for preparing a draft of amendment. We may note here that the proposal to amend the said Rule is 12 years old as can be seen from paragraph 5 of the report”, the Court observed.

The Court had earlier questioned why the Calcutta High Court was assigning regular and anticipatory bail applications to Division Benches when all other High Courts had Single Judge hear such matters. It sought an explanation from the High Court and asked for data on bail applications filed in 2024 and their pendency.

From the compliance report submitted by the Registrar General-in-Charge of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court noted that in 2024, more than 11,000 bail applications—both regular and anticipatory—were filed before the High Court.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Excise Official, But Defers His Release Till April 10

 

The Supreme Court has granted bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Special Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Excise Department, in a cheating and corruption case linked to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, the Court directed that he shall be released on April 10, 2025, to ensure that the ongoing investigation is not affected.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Tripathi has been in custody for approximately 11 months and observed that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. The Court considered the state's contention that the investigation is still ongoing and, therefore, granted time until April 10 for his release.

Apart from the terms and conditions to be fixed by the sessions court, the Supreme Court imposed additional conditions on his bail:

1. He must surrender his passport to the investigating officer.

2. He must report to the investigating officer every day at 10:00 a.m. until the charge sheet is filed.

The Court directed that he be produced before the appropriate sessions court on April 10, 2025, where the final bail order will be passed.

In the same proceedings, the Supreme Court also granted bail to three other accused in related cases arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam:

The Court noted that the investigation against Anurag Dwivedi is complete and directed that he be produced before the sessions court within ten days. The sessions court shall grant him bail with stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport and cooperating with the investigation.

Dilip Pandey, who has been in custody for approximately eight months, was granted bail under conditions similar to those imposed on Tripathi. His release has also been set for April 10, 2025.

The Supreme Court also granted bail to Deepak Duary, noting that the investigation against him is complete. The Court directed that he be produced before the sessions court within ten days, which will set appropriate bail conditions, including the surrender of his passport and cooperation with the investigation.

Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her

 The Supreme Court has reiterated that adverse inference can be drawn against a woman, who is alleged to be a victim in a rape case, if she refuses medical examination.

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them," the Court observed, referring to Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

The FIR in the case was lodged by the father of the alleged victim in 2007. It was alleged that the accused came to their house, when the parents were away, and committed forceful sexual intercourse with their daughter.

The prosecutrix was medically examined at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, where she was found to be of unsound mind as she did not cooperate in her medical examination. As the factum of sexual intercourse could not be ascertained, the prosecutrix was further referred to the RPMC Hospital at Tanda (Dharamshala) for the opinion of their Gynecologist and Psychiatrist. However, the father of the prosecutrix did not allow for any medical examination to happen.

In this case, the mother of the girl turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. The father also made evasive statements. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events.

 The High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix's testimony, came to the invariable conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given that she was able to clearly comprehend the question and answer during the cross-examination.

The Court also cited the limited jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal.

Section 47 CPC Applications Raising Property Rights After Passing Of Decree To Be Treated As Application Under Order 21 Rule 97

 The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.

The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 of the CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 address distinct proceedings— with the former concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree and the latter dealing with resistance or obstruction to possession, including by third parties— an application under Section 47 filed by a judgment debtor or an aggrieved third party will be treated as one under Order 21 Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property. In such cases, the executing court must adjudicate these questions under Order 21 Rule 101.

The Court reasoned that since the application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning rights in the property, which the executing court cannot determine after the decree has been passed, reclassifying it as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would empower the executing court to adjudicate such issues. This approach aligns with the legal principle that the executing court cannot question the validity of the decree or go beyond its scope.

“In such circumstances referred to above the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 47 of the CPC bearing R.E.A. No. 163 of 2011 was in substance an application for determination of their possessory rights under Order XXI Rule 97.”, 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

 A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 36 - Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the Arbitral proceedings, during the Arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act - All that the Court is required to see is, whether the applicant for interim measure has a good prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief as prayed for being granted and whether the applicant has approached the court with reasonable expedition.

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(2) - Once an application under subsection (2) of Section 36 is filed for stay of operation of the arbitral award, the Court might subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award, for reasons to be recorded in writing - Court is empowered to impose such conditions as it might deem fit and may grant stay of operation of the award subject to furnishing of security covering entire amount of the award including interest.

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - While considering an application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

(IPC) – S 302/34 - Murder - Common intention- HELD the evidence available on record was not looked into as the witnesses had already been exposed to the accused in the police station - After all, the test identification parade is only a part of an investigation, and therefore, nothing more can be attached to it - Acquittal

 

Recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant - Prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence

 

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 – Murder - Even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution -

 sclaw.in

Considering the seriousness of the offences alleged, this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, when according to the State, recoveries are yet to be made and the respondent has not extended full cooperation in the investigation - Appeal allowed.

 sclaw.in