Saturday, 25 August 2018

Digest of leading Judgments of Supreme court

1)Highlights of Judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1


 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 
 Ss. 154, 155, 156 and 157 - FIR in cognizable case - Registration of - Whether is mandatory or police officer has option,
discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary inquiry before registering FIR - Mandatory registration of FIR on receipt of
information disclosing a cognizable offence as the general rule - Situations/cases in which preliminary inquiry is
permissible - Scope of, and safeguards to be followed in cases where such preliminary inquiry (time-bound) is
permissible - Held, the registration of FIR is mandatory under S. 154, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation - This is the general rule and must be
strictly complied with However, where information received does not disclose a cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry
may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not - Also, matrimonial disputes/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution are illustrations and not exhaustive of all cases which may warrant
preliminary inquiry -
Read judgment here: Click here

2) What are five golden principles for proving case against accused based on circumstantial evidence?

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783 where the following observations were made:

certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Read full judgment here: Click here

3) Landmark judgment of Supreme court on daughter's right to receive share in ancestral property?

Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the
amendment are applicable to living daughters of living
coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of
when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation
including partitions which may have taken place before
20th December, 2004 as per law applicable prior to the said

date will remain unaffected. Any transaction of partition
effected thereafter will be governed by the Explanation.
We are unable to find any reason to hold that birth of the
daughter after the amendment was a necessary condition
for its applicability. All that is required is that daughter
should be alive and her father should also be alive on the

date of the amendment.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7217 OF 2013
PRAKASH & ORS. 
VERSUS
PHULAVATI & ORS.

Citation;(2016)2 SCC36
Dated;OCTOBER 16, 2015
Read full judgment here: Click here
4) 

Highlights of landmark Judgment- Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI)

Read full judgment here:Click here
5) 

Whether Caretaker, watchman or servant can claim possession of property against its owner?


Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:

1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.

2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.

4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.

5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal No. 2968 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15382 of 2009)

Decided On: 21.03.2012

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dalveer Bhandari, H.L. Dattu and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Citation: (2012) 5 SCC 370,
Read full judgment here: Click here
6) 

Guidelines of Supreme Court for releasing accused on default bail U/S 167 of CRPC?

 In Uday Mohanlal Acharya's case (supra) the Court culled out six guidelines, which are as follows:

1. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an Accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorise detention of the Accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole.

2. Under the proviso to the aforesaid Sub-section (2) of Section 167, the Magistrate may authorise detention of the Accused otherwise than in the custody of police for a total period not exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence.

3. On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the Accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the Accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.

4. When an application for bail is filed by an Accused for enforcement of his indefeasible right alleged to have been accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period, the Magistrate/court must dispose of it forthwith, on being satisfied that in fact the Accused has been in custody for the period of 90 days or 60 days, as specified and no charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Such prompt action on the part of the Magistrate/court will not enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of the Act and the legislative mandate of an Accused being released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the period stipulated.

5. If the Accused is unable to furnish the bail as directed by the Magistrate, then on a conjoint reading of Explanation I and the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, the continued custody of the Accused even beyond the specified period in para (a) will not be unauthorised, and therefore, if during that period the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed then the so-called indefeasible right of the Accused would stand extinguished.

6. The expression "if not already availed of" used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, MANU/SC/0554/1994 : (1994) 5 SCC 410, must be understood to mean when the Accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period specified in para (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 if the Accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail on being directed, then it has to be held that the Accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the court has not considered the said application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail, and the Accused has not furnished the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 394 of 2001

Decided On: 29.03.2001

Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: (2001) 5 SCC 453.
Read full judgment here :click here
7) 

Whether factors are to be taken in consideration while deciding bail application?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2017.

Decided On: 14.11.2017

 Anil Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 12 SCC129.
Read full judgment here: click here
8) 

Guidelines of supreme court to be followed by court if accused is not co-operating in examination of witnesses

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 8994-8995 of 2015) 

Decided On: 28.11.2017

Doongar Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.
Read full judgment here:Click here
9) 

Landmark judgment of Supreme court of Tahsildar singh v state of Uttar pradesh

Read full judgment here: Click here
10) 

Whether it is permissible for court to grant blanket order of anticipatory bail?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 09.04.1980

 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., O. Chinnappa Reddy, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Pathak and N.L. Untwalia, JJ.
Read full judgment here: Click here
Citation:  1980 (2) S.C.C. 565
11) Guidelines of Supreme court on arrest of accused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition. (Crl) No. 539 of 1986.

Decided On: 18.12.1996

D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kuldip Singh and Dr. A.S. Anand, JJ.
Read full judgment here: Click here

Citation:  JT 1997(1) SC 1 : RLW 1997 (1) SC 94

12)  Whether woman and minor can be respondent in domestic violence proceeding?
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10084 of 2016

HIRAL P. HARSORA  KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA
AND ORS.
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman
Dated:October 6, 2016.
Citation: AIR 2016 SC4774, 2017(2) MHLJ 147 SC,2017 CRLJ
509 SC.
Read full judgment here: Click here

SC:When Trial Court Records Are Summoned By Higher Courts Only Photocopy/Scanned Copy Of The Records Need To Be Sent To Avoid Delay

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1375-1376 OF 2013
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY P. LTD. 
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
Dated:April 25, 2018.
Read full judgment here: Click here

Supreme court: Civil / criminal cases can not be stayed for more than six months

In the Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Before Adarsh Kumar Goel, Navin Sinha and R.F. Nariman, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v.  Central Burueau of Investigation .

Decided on March 28, 2018
Citation: 2018 SCCONLINE SC 310
Read full judgment here:Click her
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment