Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 386 and 397 — Appeal against Conviction — Sentence Reduction — High Court may reduce sentence or convert conviction to lesser offence considering accused's age and case circumstances.
Sunday, 23 March 2025
“Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” — Employees appointed under the “Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” are entitled to pensionary benefits if the service rules applicable to equivalent posts in the Cane Development Department have been extended to them by government decisions
“Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” — Employees appointed under the “Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” are entitled to pensionary benefits if the service rules applicable to equivalent posts in the Cane Development Department have been extended to them by government decisions —Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, affirming the High Court's decision that respondents appointed under the "Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana" between 1969 and 1982 are entitled to pensionary benefits — The Court reasoned that government decisions had extended the service rules of the Cane Development Department to these employees, entitling them to similar benefits as permanent government employees, consistent with the Court's earlier judgment in the Vinod Kumar Goel case — The Court rejected arguments regarding delay and the respondents' prior acceptance of Contributory Provident Fund benefits, noting that their claim for pension was raised early and they were willing to deposit the withdrawn amount — The arrears of pension were, however, restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Writ Petition.
Supreme Court allowed an appeal by candidates holding Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology who were disqualified for the post of Food Safety Officer by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Section 37 — Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 — Rule 2.1.3 — Qualifications for Food Safety Officers — A recruitment notification specifying "a degree" in certain science subjects for the post of Food Safety Officer encompasses postgraduate degrees in those subjects unless explicitly excluded by the relevant statutory rules prescribed by the Central Government — Supreme Court allowed an appeal by candidates holding Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology who were disqualified for the post of Food Safety Officer by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission — The Court held that the term "degree" in the recruitment advertisement and the Rules, 2011, includes postgraduate degrees in the listed science subjects (Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology, Oil Technology, Agriculture Science, Veterinary Sciences, Biochemistry, Microbiology), noting that the specific mention of a Master's degree in Chemistry sets the minimum qualification for that subject — The Court emphasized that the Central Government has the exclusive power to prescribe qualifications for FSOs under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and that holding a higher degree in a relevant subject does not disqualify a candidate — The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the respondents to allow the appellants to participate in the interview process.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent, who sold his flat to a borrower financed by the appellant, was not a 'consumer' of the appellant under the Act, 1986, due to the absence of a direct contractual relationship
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d) and 24-A — Contract Act, 1872 — A flat seller who is not a borrower or a party to the home loan agreement lacks privity of contract with the financing company and cannot be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act for claims related to the sale consideration — Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had directed the appellant to refund money and pay costs to the respondent (original flat owner) — The Supreme Court held that the respondent, who sold his flat to a borrower financed by the appellant, was not a 'consumer' of the appellant under the Act, 1986, due to the absence of a direct contractual relationship — The Court also noted the doubtful existence of a Tripartite Agreement imposing liability on the appellant towards the respondent, the non-joinder of the borrower as a necessary party, and the issue of limitation in filing the consumer complaint.
M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED
Vs.
SNEHASIS NANDA
A statutory board lacks the authority to unilaterally reverse a government land acquisition for a public purpose through a private agreement.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4 and 6 — Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 — Sections 4 and 6 — Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vests absolutely in the government upon possession — A statutory body, for whose benefit the land was acquired, cannot enter into a private agreement to return a portion of the land, as this would circumvent the law — Such an agreement is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and constitutes a fraud on the state's sovereign power of eminent domain — An arbitral award upholding such an illegal agreement is against public policy and liable to be set aside.
DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
Vs.
BHAGWAN DEVI (DEAD), THROUGH HER LR.
Supreme Court partly allows an appeal, converting a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304, considering the lack of premeditation and the time already served by the appellant,
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 300, 302 and 304 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served — Supreme Court partly allows an appeal, converting a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304, considering the lack of premeditation and the time already served by the appellant, and directs release if not required in any other case.
SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as their mere presence at the crime scene amidst a large crowd was insufficient to prove membership in an unlawful assembly without evidence of specific roles or overt acts.
Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 143, 147 and 149 — Conviction for Unlawful Assembly — Necessity of Proof Beyond Mere Presence — Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances — Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as their mere presence at the crime scene amidst a large crowd was insufficient to prove membership in an unlawful assembly without evidence of specific roles or overt acts.
DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER
Vs.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal,
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State, if “sufficient cause” is shown and substantial justice is served, balancing between adherence to limitation and the pursuit of meritorious claims —Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach when substantial justice is at stake, particularly in cases involving government land, while ensuring the State exhibits due diligence in future proceedings.
INDER SINGH
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described
The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.
Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”
PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR
CBI Files 'Closure Report' In Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case, Rules Out Foul Play
After huge hue and cry and a probe that went on for more than four years, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Saturday filed a 'closure report' in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, stating that it did not find any evidence to conclude any 'foul play' in the death of the actor.
According to PTI, the CBI through its officials have submitted its 'closure report' in the death case before a special court in Mumbai, on Saturday. The special court, will not decided whether to accept the report or order further probe.
Reacting to the news, actor Rhea Chakraborty's counsel, senior advocate Satish Maneshinde has expressed displeasure over the 'uncalled for' false narratives on social media and also the electronic media, particularly against his client.
"The CBI has filed a closure report in connection with the Death of Sushant Singh Rajput after almost 4 and a half years. We are Greatful to the CBI for having thoroughly investigated every aspect of the case from all angles and closed the case. The amount of false narrative in the Social Media and Electronic Media was totally uncalled for. Innocent people were hounded and paraded before the Media and investigative authorities. I hope this does not repeat in any case," Maneshinde said.
The senior advocate further beseeched the 'captains' of media to reflect upon what they did.
"Rhea had to undergo untold miseries and was behind bars for 27 days for no fault of hers until Justice Sarang Kotwal of the Bombay High Court, released her on bail. Today I can share that I'm proud to have defended a Fauji Family Pro Bono. This Country is still very safe and every citizen crying for Justice has hope due to our vibrant judiciary," Maneshinde said, and concluded with, "Satya Meva Jayate!"
Notably, the actor was found hanging at his home on June 14, 2020 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. Initially the case was probed by Mumbai Police, which concluded that it was a case of suicide as it found no evidence to show if anyone 'forcibly entered' his house. The city police in its preliminary probe also found that 'depression' could be a major contributing factor in the suicide. The police also did not found any 'suicide note' from the actor's residence.
Subsequently, the actor's father KK Singh lodged an FIR with the Patna Police in Bihar accusing actor Rhea and others of abetting his son's suicide. The father also alleged cheating, theft and wrongful confinement against Rhea.
In a counter, the actor too lodged an FIR against Sushant's sisters, accusing them of forging a 'prescription' of some scheduled drugs.
Since there were conflicting reports of the Patna and Mumbai Police, the Supreme Court had on August 19, 2020 ordered the CBI to conduct a thorough probe in both the cases. Now, as per the PTI report, the CBI has filed a closure report in both these cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)