P. 1
What the Supreme Court Says

What the Supreme Court Says

|Views: 1|Likes:
Publicado porjcheda

More info:

Published by: jcheda on Aug 22, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/21/2014

pdf

text

original

THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE (Deemed University

)

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ?

Scope of Art. 136 in reweighing the Evidence

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Art.136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 providing for appeal by Special Leave in reweighing the evidence in criminal cases. It was held that the Supreme Court cannot exercise its overriding powers under Art.136 to reweigh evidence. It cannot disturb concurrent findings of facts reached upon by the trial court after proper appreciation of evidence and if two views are possible, one indicating conviction and other acquittal, Supreme Court would not interfere with order of acquittal. However it was held that if acquittal is perverse or imprudent or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust, Supreme Court would interfere with. In the facts of the case, the Court held that all those present in spot need not be examined to prove guilt of the accused; hence non-examination of any other witness was not fatal to prosecution. Prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved or discarded merely on reason of non-examination of other witnesses. Therefore, high court clearly erred in reversing the order of conviction by the trial court. (Raj Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, decided on18 September 2009)

Inherent powers of High Court under S. 482 of Cr.PC

In this case, the respondent lodged FIR against appellants alleging commission of offences under sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Even while investigation was in progress respondent filed petition under section 482 of CrPC. The high court directed the police to expedite and complete investigation. Hence the issue in the present appeal was whether it was open to the high court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC to interfere with statutory power of investigation by police and if such a power is available with the court, what are the parameters for its interference. As per the Code, the power under section 482 of CrPC can be exercised by the high court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure ends of justice; (ii) to give effect to any order under Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of process of any court. Therefore, the high court cannot direct investigating agency to investigate a case in accordance with its views as that would

M.amount to unwarranted interference. directed police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses. decided on 14 September 2009) Constitutionality of the Office of Profit and Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act. without recording any reason whatsoever. he could be continued as a member. 1988 or any other enactment. the high court. The order of the high court was held to be an order passed overstepping the limits of judicial interference and hence null and void. 2006 The constitutionality of Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act. can the Court yet . Therefore. the high court issued directions in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing appellants. matter was held not required to be referred to Joint Committee and the Amendment Act of 2006 was held constitutionally valid. 2006 and the exemption of 55 offices from the list of 'office of profit' by Amendment Act with retrospective effect for removal of disqualification were discussed in this case. (Consumer Education and Research Society v. It was further held that requirement of reference to Joint Committee was merely a parliamentary procedure and not a constitutional convention. In the present case. and seizure of property and filing of charge sheet. However. K. 1988 in the absence of a valid insurance coverage and the powers of the Supreme Court under article 142 of the Constitution of India was the issue in this case. arrest. It was held in the present case that without realising the consequences. The legislature is free from undue influence of executive while enacting prevention of disqualification laws. Mohan Krishnamachari and Another. Venkatasubramaniam and Others v. The Parliament has the power to exempt offices from disqualification retrospectively and the legislative power of Parliament could not be denuded by violation of any norm or traditional procedure.( D. More precisely the question was whether in any event an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under Motor Vehicles Act. decided on. It was held that the Parliament has the power to enact prevention of disqualification law under article102 (1) (a) with retrospective effect and the question of disqualification of a Member of Parliament is to be decided by President of India. the decision of President or Chairman/Speaker is merely adjudication and confirmation of pre-existing fact and the vacancy of the seat is consequential. 24 August 2009) Liability of Insurance Company to Pay Compensation in the Absence of a Valid Insurance Coverage The liability of an Insurance Company to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Non-observation of an occasional procedure does not render any prevention of disqualification law unconstitutional. Union of India and Others. The declaration of disqualification by the President or Speaker/Chairman of the House is a condition precedent for vacancy of seat. Unless disqualification of a member has been challenged. The high court interfered with investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of police.

may grant interim bail pending final disposal of bail application.N. by all courts in U. (1994 Cr. The Court directed to follow the decision in Amaravati (2005 CrLJ 755). 2009) The Supreme Court has held that arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences. 2009) The Supreme Court while reiterating that frequent and uncalled for interference by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest but nevertheless emphasized that the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. Ojha and Ors. .P.P. High Court s jurisdiction under S. 1582 of 2009 Decided on Aug 21. v. 482 Cr PC (M. interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application. & Others. In deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar v. wherein it was held that the court. As per the apex court. (National Insurance Company Limited v. in letter and spirit especially when the provisions of anticipatory bail does not exist in U.LJ 1981). Previous decisions of the court holding that even if insurance company has no liability. since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person s reputation. decided on 31 August 2009). in appropriate cases. the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. Cri.P. can it be compelled by an order of the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 142 of the Constitution to pay compensation amount and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle.compel it to pay amount in question by giving it the liberty to later on recover same from owner of vehicle. Appeal No. if deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Parvathneni and Another. In the light of the conflicting opinions regarding the moot question as to whether in cases where the insurance company has no liability to pay at all. Interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application (Chal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. decided on March 23. State of U. State of U.P. yet it must pay and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle were challenged in this case.

Acts which does not constitute infringement of copyright [Academy of General Edu. 2009) In the instant case the election of a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly was declared void by the High Court of Kerala and hence the appeal. Jacob v. inter alia. if the dance is performed within the meaning of provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 52 the order of injunction shall not apply.Civil Appeal No. 3611 of 2008 decided on March 6. if such performance is conducted before a non-paying audience by the appellant institution. It is well settled that in an Election Petition for proving an allegation of corrupt practice the standard of proof is like that in a Criminal case. When a fair dealing is made. A. of a literary or dramatic work for the purpose of private use including research and criticism or review. if the institution comes within the purview of amateur club or society. Reversing the impugned judgment the court held thus: Even assuming that an inference can be drawn from the allegation . if some performance or dance is carried out within the purview of the Section 52. Similarly. whether of that work or of any other work. Manipal & Anr. the same would not constitute any violation of the order of injunction. the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words. 1957 provides certain acts which would not constitute an infringement of a copyright. Civil Appeal No.J. The ground was corrupt practice committed by the publication of a pamphlet by the appellant s election agent. v. Yet again. . the right in terms of the provisions of the Act cannot be claimed. the order of injunction shall not be applicable. Narayanan & Ors.. 389 of 2008 decided on January 23. There may be any member of other inference also. that is only one possible inference.Standard of Proof in Corrupt Practices in Elections (M. Malini Mallya. Thus. and if two views are possible then the benefit of doubt should go to the elected candidate. B. 2009] The Supreme Court in the instant case held that Section 52 of the Copyright Act. appellant being an educational institution.

The Single Bench by a practically non-reasoned order held the petitioner to be released on probation.with 6% interest. this power must be exercised with great care and caution.2009) In this case. Criminal appeal no 1285-1287 of 2001 decided on January 12 2009) Setting aside the decision of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.after applying a multiplier of 15. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and directed to rehear the Letters Patent Appeal on condonation of delay keeping in view parameters indicated in Arvind Yadav v. The apex court also observed that. dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.000/. Ramesh Kumar [2003 (6) SCC 144]. In the appeal by the State the Division Bench held that there was no substance in the appeal and also noted that the appeal was barred by 32 days.towards personal expenses assessed the compensation to be RS 90. and. Civil appeal No/597 of 2009 decided on February 3. The High Court taking the multiplier as 15 assessed the compensation as RS 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as RS 1. Guesswork regarding the income of the deceased not to be detached from reality in MACT cases (U.per moth and deducting RS 500/. Interest at 6% per annum was awarded from the date of application. 2009-03-13) These appeals and cross objections are related to the rationale of compensation amount in a Motor Accident case. Abdul Kdir And Anr. 1954.P v. Parameters for releasing a convict on probation (State of M.45. even though the appellate court is given wide powers to review the trial court s conclusion. Shanti Devi and Anr.000/. Criminal Appeal No. the Supreme Court reemphasized the importance of dying declarations in criminal cases in the following words: The High Court in the impugned judgment has gravely erred in totally ignoring the dying declarations.P State Road Transport Corporation v.P v. Sukhpal Singh and others.000/.Importance of Dying Declarations in Criminal Cases (State of U. 1289 of 2002 decided on February 13. which was recorded by the Magistrate. In the appeal file by the Corporation the High Court found the income assessed to be low and fixed it at RS 2000/. . therefore.from which one-third was to be deducted for personal expenses. a life convict filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court praying to be released under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act.

2009) By reiterating its earlier decisions.000/ with 6% interest.decided on February 17. is an exceptional and overriding power to be exercised sparingly with caution in extraordinary and special situation. Criminal Appeal No. Taking multiplier as 11 the Court assessed the compensation to be 1. Civil Petition No.) The Supreme Court has ruled that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the consumer fora or by the criminal court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the consumer fora or criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctor. Discretionary Power under Article 136 (Anurag Kumar v. 2009) . M.(Civil Appeal No.446 of 2009) decided on 27. and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issue to the concerned doctor/hospital. Non-reasoned order by the high court (State Represented by Tahsildar Cum Sales Officer v. Mohd. Janakiranman and Anr.. On the basis of this reasoning the Supreme Court held that the annual income of the deceased could be taken as 1500/-per month out of which one-third can be deducted for personal expenses.01. in (1999) 2 SCC 321) the Apex court held that though special leave is granted under Article136 of the Constitution in a particular petition. the discretionary power which is vested in the court at the stage of special leave petition continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing and when both sides are heard on merit As per the Court. Ishfaq. - No notices to a doctor or hospital without receiving an expert committee s report (Martin F. D Souza v.3541 of 2002. 557-558 of 2002 decided on February 9. the discretionary power under Article 136. Mohan Lal & Anr. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctor who may not be ultimately found to be negligent.32. 2009. specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed.The apex court found that when there is a lack of material regarding the income of the deceased there is scope for some amount of guesswork but without totally detaching from reality .

while remitting the matter to the high court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and directed to rehear the Letters Patent Appeal on condonation of delay keeping in view parameters indicated in Arvind Yadav v.2009) Guesswork regarding the income of the deceased not to be detached from reality in MACT cases These appeals and cross objections are related to the rationale of compensation amount in a Motor Accident case. and. The Court observed that the High Court has even not indicated as to how the conclusions of the trial court were without any basis or not sustainable. Criminal Appeal No. Sukhpal Singh and others. this power must be exercised with great care and cautio Parameters in the matter of release on probation In this case. Ramesh Kumar [2003 (6) SCC 144]. Abdul Kdir And Anr.P v. criticized the high court for not giving a reasoned order. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as RS . Importance of Dying Declarations in Criminal Cases (State of U. 1954. even though the appellate court is given wide powers to review the trial court s conclusion. The apex court also observed that. Criminal appeal no 1285-1287 of 2001 decided on January 12 2009) Setting aside the decision of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. therefore. dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. the Supreme Court reemphasized the importance of dying declarations in criminal cases in the following words: The High Court in the impugned judgment has gravely erred in totally ignoring the dying declarations. The Single Bench by a practically non-reasoned order held the petitioner to be released on probation. The apex court. 1289 of 2002 decided on February 13. which was recorded by the Magistrate.P v.This appeal was filed against the acquittal order by the single judge of the Madras High Court in an Excise case. In the appeal by the State the Division Bench held that there was no substance in the appeal and also noted that the appeal was barred by 32 days. a life convict filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court praying to be released under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act. (State of M.

The High Court taking the multiplier as 15 assessed the compensation as RS 2. Interest at 6% per annum was awarded from the date of application. In the appeal file by the Corporation the High Court found the income assessed to be low and fixed it at RS 2000/. Civil appeal No/597 of 2009 decided on February 3.32. The apex court found that when there is a lack of material regarding the income of the deceased there is scope for some amount of guesswork but without totally detaching from reality .with 6% interest. 2009. 2009-03-13) No notices to a doctor or hospital without receiving an expert committee s report The Supreme Court has ruled that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the consumer fora or by the criminal court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the consumer fora or criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctor.towards personal expenses assessed the compensation to be RS 90. and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issue to the concerned doctor/hospital.from which one-third was to be deducted for personal expenses. (U.000/ with 6% interest. in (1999) 2 SCC 321) the Apex court held that though special leave is granted under Article136 of the Constitution in a particular petition.000/. Shanti Devi and Anr. D Souza v.per moth and deducting RS 500/.000/.decided on February 17. On the basis of this reasoning the Supreme Court held that the annual income of the deceased could be taken as 1500/-per month out of which one-third can be deducted for personal expenses.after applying a multiplier of 15. Taking multiplier as 11 the Court assessed the compensation to be 1. (Martin F. specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed.45. Ishfaq.) Discretionary Power under Article 136 By reiterating its earlier decisions. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctor who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. Civil Petition No.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd.1. the discretionary power which is vested in the court at the stage of special leave petition continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing and when both sides are heard .000/.3541 of 2002.

on merit As per the Court. criticized the high court for not giving a reasoned order.01. The Court observed that the High Court has even not indicated as to how the conclusions of the trial court were without any basis or not sustainable. The apex court. (State Represented by Tahsildar Cum Sales Officer v. 2009). while remitting the matter to the high court for fresh consideration.(Civil Appeal No. Janakiranman and Anr. is an exceptional and overriding power to be exercised sparingly with caution in extraordinary and special situation. 557-558 of 2002 decided on February 9. Mohan Lal & Anr.2009) Non-reasoned order by the high court This appeal was filed against the acquittal order by the single judge of the Madras High Court in an Excise case. the discretionary power under Article 136.446 of 2009) decided on 27. (Anurag Kumar v. .. M. Criminal Appeal No.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->