Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations - These provisions make it abundantly clear that the election of the Mayor has to be held first. The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently,...
Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi)
Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations - These provisions make it abundantly clear that the election of the Mayor has to be held first. The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently, with this clarification, it must be noted that the election of the Mayor shall be conducted first in the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Once the Mayor is elected, the elected Mayor shall be the presiding authority for the purpose of the election of the Deputy Mayor. (Para 12) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra)
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 439 read with Clause (5) of Appendix IV - Service of employees in Zilla Parishad (ZP) should be counted for seniority when Zilla Parishad has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Clause 5(c), including its first proviso, occupies this field of law till date. The provision explicitly deals with protection of conditions of service of the officers and servants who were earlier employed in a local authority like a ZP, and who have been subsequently absorbed into a Municipal Corporation. It expressly protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well. (Para 21) Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229 : (2023) 2 SCR 981
Murder Trial
Person guilty of murder even when he mistakenly kills another person : Supreme Court applies 'doctrine of transfer of malice'. Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Supreme Court rejects defence of intoxication in murder case, says accused walking properly & returning to shoot indicated alert mental state. Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
4 circumstances to be proved in cases of murder by poison : Supreme Court explains. Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 968 : (2024) 2 SCC 557
Murder Trial - Non-Explanation of injuries on accused will create doubts on prosecution version. Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953 : AIR 2023 SC 5685 : 2024 CriLJ 81
Murder Trial - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable if the accused took "undue advantage" of the situation. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : : AIR 2023 SC 5512 : (2024) 1 SCC 327 : 2024 CriLJ 199
'Sudden provocation as Rs. 500 for daughter not given' : Supreme Court modifies murder conviction of wife who killed husband. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : AIR 2023 SC 3683
Murder case - 'Cruel' is a relative term; if its ordinary meaning is used, exception 4 of Section 300 IPC can never be applied. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : AIR 2023 SC 3569
Supreme Court acquits father-son duo in a 27 years old murder case by according benefit of doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : AIR 2023 SC 3086 : (2023) 7 SCC 350
Supreme Court acquits man accused of murdering wife 35 years ago; says conviction resulted in 'travesty of justice'. Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240
Witness went to sleep after seeing his friend murdered ? Supreme Court doubts testimony, acquits convict in murder case after two decades. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746
Murder Trial - Credible testimony of a single eyewitness sufficient to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965
Murder Trial - Last seen theory : time at which deceased was lastly seen with accused should be proved conclusively. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661
Murder Trial - Prosecution's omission to explain injuries on accused assumes importance when evidence consists of interested witnesses. Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : AIR 2023 SC 1599 : [2023] 2 SCR 276
'Non-Recovery of corpse relevant in considering chain of circumstances' : Supreme Court reverses conviction in murder case. Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2023 SC 1239
Murder Trial - Once prosecution establishes 'last seen theory', the accused is bound to give explanations. Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2023 SC 1145
'Entitled to benefit of doubt': Supreme Court acquits accused in a 1985 murder case. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2023 SC 634 : 2023 Cri LJ 1726
Mere long standing pre-existing dispute will not attract exception of 'grave & sudden provocation'. Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
'Material circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.': Supreme Court overturns conviction in NDPS Act case after 22 years. Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
Law does not require only an independent witness to prove NDPS Act charges. Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 990
NDPS Act - If samples are drawn violating Section 52A, trial stands vitiated. Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890 : AIR 2023 SC 5041
Section 50 NDPS Act not applicable to recovery from bag carried by a person. Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
'Contraband recovered in violation of section 50 NDPS Act inadmissible' : Supreme Court summarises principles for search of persons. Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
NDPS Act - Confession to NCB officials not admissible in evidence; possession must be established to draw presumption under S. 54. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : AIR 2023 SC 4684
Section 50 NDPS - Conviction cannot be sustained if accused were not informed about their right to be searched before magistrate/gazetted officer. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724
Prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates constitutional principles of dignity & liberty: SC relaxes bail conditions imposed on Nigerian accused in NDPS case. Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670
NDPS Act - Conviction liable to be set aside if samples weren't drawn in magistrate's presence as per Section 52A. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
The Mandate of Section 52A NDPS Act has to be duly complied before disposal / destruction of seized narcotic substances. Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549
NDPS Act - In case of prolonged incarceration, liberty will override embargo under Section 37 : Supreme Court grants bail. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
Ganja seeds are not banned contraband under NDPS Act. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354
Plain and literal interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act would make bail impossible: Supreme Court adopts 'Prima Facie' Test. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2023 SC 1648
Bail can be granted in NDPS cases on ground of undue delay in trial despite stringent conditions in Section 37. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - the law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provisions of NDPS Act. (Para 7) Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 990
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stand vitiated. (Para 16) Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the conviction of the accused deserves to be set aside. (Para 13, 17) Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - When any contraband / narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in subsection (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. (Para 12) Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) - The aforesaid provisions provide for the procedure and manner of seizing, preparing the inventory of the seized material, forwarding the seized material and getting inventory certified by the Magistrate concerned. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of the samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as the primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 890
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the NDPS Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for the search of any bag carried by the person. (Para 125) Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 of the NDPS Act envisions certain requirements for conducting searches, which include the right of the person to be searched to have the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if they so desire. The police officer has the obligation to inform the person of this right before proceeding with the search. If the person declines to exercise this right, the search can proceed, but a written statement should be taken from the person indicating their choice. The communication of this right should be clear, either orally or in writing, and should provide only two options: a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, who must be independent and not connected to the raiding party. Each person to be searched in a group must be individually informed of their right. If the right is exercised, the police officer can choose whether to take the suspect before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, with an endeavor to take them before the nearest Magistrate. Section 50 applies exclusively to searches under the NDPS Act and does not apply to searches conducted under any other statute. In cases where contraband under the NDPS Act is discovered during a search under another statute, the NDPS Act provisions come into effect, even if Section 50 compliance was not required. The burden of proving compliance with Section 50 rests on the prosecution, and any incriminating contraband recovered in violation of Section 50 is inadmissible but does not vitiate the trial, while other articles recovered may be used in separate proceedings. (Para 64) Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 53 - Any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such officers are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 54 - For attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must first establish possession of contraband by the accused, only then will the burden shift to the accused to prove his innocence. The possession of the contraband must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (Para 16) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer - There was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Conviction cannot be sustained. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conviction liable to be set aside if samples weren't drawn in magistrate's presence as per Section 52A. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - In case of prolonged incarceration, liberty will override embargo under Section 37 : Supreme Court grants bail. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - In case of prolonged incarceration, conditional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Act. Prolonged incarceration is against fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, ie, protection of life and personal liberty. (Para 4) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114(g) - Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn - Before any proposed disposal / destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery - Provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 6-9) Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52-A - the process of drawing of samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The entire exercise of collecting the sample must be certified by the Magistrate to be correct. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Definition of "ganja" under the Act does not include ganja seeds - Ganja seeds not a banned contraband. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 – Effect of delay in trial – Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial not fettered by Section 37 – Imperative of Section 436A of Code of Criminal Procedure Act – Requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods – Applicable to offences under the NDPS Act – Held, special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can only be considered within constitutional parameters when the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record that the accused is not guilty – A plain and literal would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether - Further held, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail – Appeal allowed. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2023 SC 1648
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Supreme Court allows housing society's appeal against NGT's direction to halt constructions near a lake- issue whether the construction was in submerged area was decided in earlier civil proceedings in favour of the society- that decree was affirmed by the SC- So NGT could not have ignored the decree- he decree was affirmed by all the courts. When the NGT was made aware of this fact, it chose to ignore it. Without a review, or any known process by which a decree concerning the same facts could be reopened, the NGT could not have rejected the society's contentions. The society's appeal, therefore, requires to succeed. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2023 SC 1558
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Principles of Natural Justice - Expert Opinion - the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. If the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. (Para 16) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The Court noted that the recommendations were uploaded on 15.01.2022 and the Tribunal passed its final order on 18.01.2022, i.e, only three days later. Accordingly, on the ground of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of recommendation of the Expert Committee. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 17 - Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948; Section 53 - Whether NGT can exercise jurisdiction when the matter is covered under the ESI Act? Held, that this issue merits consideration. But given the circumstances of the case, chose not to interfere with the compensation given and kept the question of law open for the future. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 19(1) - Principles of Natural Justice - the NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
National Green Tribunal Act 2010; Section 25 - The NGT has power under Section 25 to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court-The Tribunal is entrusted with the wholesome power to ensure that its orders are complied with. (Para 5, 6) Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Challenge to Environmental Clearance - Whether against the corrigendum to the EC along with additional conditions, an appeal before the NGT would be maintainable or not-An aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum imposing additional conditions to the Environmental Clearance, but the appeal would be restricted to the corrigendum if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged. (Para 9) IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. (Para 44, 47) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368
National Highway
Dispute on apportionment of compensation can only be determined by 'principal civil court of original jurisdiction'. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : AIR 2023 SC 3337
National Highways Authority Act, 1956
National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - Apportionment under subclause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land. (Para 28) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511
National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of subsection (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court. (Para 33-34) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511
National Livestock Policy, 2013
National Livestock Policy, 2013 - The decision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter is for the legislature to take. The court cannot force the legislature to come out with a specific law even in its writ jurisdiction. The court also took note of the steps taken by the state governments for the protection of cows. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535
National Security
'Shocking': Supreme Court on UP Govt invoking National Security Act in Revenue Recovery Case; Quashes detention of SP Leader. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301
Supreme Court lifts telecast ban on MediaOne, says state using plea of 'national security' to deny citizens' rights. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
National Security concerns won't absolutely abrogate principles of natural justice; no blanket immunity for IB reports. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - In a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid. (Para 6) Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1075
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 138 - In a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the accused cannot rely upon other bank accounts for the dishonoured cheque which relates to specific bank account of the accused. (Para 6) Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1046
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 141 (1) - It is not averred anywhere in the complaint that the appellant was in charge of the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. What is stated in the complaint is only that the accused being the partners are responsible for the day-to-day conduct and business of the company. It is also relevant to note that an overall reading of the complaint would not disclose any clear and specific role of the appellant. The appellant has also got a contention that he retired from the partnership firm much prior to the issuance of the cheque in question. Held, that the averments in the complaint filed by the respondent are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Section 141(1) of the NI Act. Since the averments in the complaint are insufficient to attract the provisions under Section 141(1) of the NI Act, to create vicarious liability upon the appellant, he is entitled to succeed in this appeal. The appellant has made out a case for quashing the criminal complaint in relation to him, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC. (Para 17) Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869 : (2024) 1 SCC 348
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 141 (1) - Only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. (Para 16) Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869 : (2024) 1 SCC 348
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. (Para 45) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly. (Para 55) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The fundamental error in the approach lies in the fact that the High Court has questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainant in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, when it ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque. (Para 62) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - When the Courts have concluded that the signature in the cheque has been admitted and its execution has been proved, then the Courts should inquire into either of the two questions: 1. Has the accused led any defense evidence to prove and conclusively establish that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque? 2. In the absence of rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail: Has the accused proved the nonexistence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the 'particular circumstances of the case? (Para 56) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 142(2)(a) - Territorial Jurisdiction - When the case was fixed for final arguments, the Magistrate, on examining the records, came to the conclusion that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction. No opportunity was granted to the complainant to take remedial steps. The Magistrate passed the order without realizing the legal consequences as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for more than four years and had proceeded without any objection to territorial jurisdiction, till the stage of final arguments. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the complainant. Held, that the complainant should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect / lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 139 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If the question as to whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - Normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. (Para 5 - 6) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited - Where there were several transactions over a period of time for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured, convict cannot take benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Offences by Companies - A person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed. Just because a person is managing a company and is involved in its day-to-day affairs, he does not automatically come under the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 19) Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 143A(1) - Where a cheque is dishonoured, the interim compensation can be directed to be paid only after the accused has pleaded not guilty. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138, 147 - The nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and is a compoundable offence. (Para 10) B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75 : AIR 2023 SC 717 : (2023) 2 SCR 293
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 138 - Approval of resolution plan of corporate debtor will not extinguish the liability of erstwhile director for dishonour of cheque. (Para 17, 18 & 47, 52) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 138 - Where the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had already commenced and during the pendency the plan is approved or the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape from their liability by citing its dissolution. (Para 52) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - by operation of the provisions of the IBC, the criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons under Section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act read with Section 200 of the CrPC would not stand terminated. (Para 47) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Conviction cannot be confirmed overriding the agreement between the parties to compound the offence- Terms and conditions of the settlement entered into by the parties binds them to settle the dispute amicably, or through an arbitration as has been stated in clause 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence- This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will. (Para 8, 9, 11) B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75 : AIR 2023 SC 717 : (2023) 2 SCR 293
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - The offence under Section 138 is complete upon dishonour of the cheque but prosecution in relation to such offence is postponed, by virtue of the provisos therein, till the failure of the drawer of the cheque to make the payment within 15 days of receiving the demand notice. (Para 5) Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125 : AIR 2023 SC 1151 : (2023) 2 SCR 511
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 142(2)(a) - Section 142(2)(a) vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account. (Para 12) Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125 : AIR 2023 SC 1151 : (2023) 2 SCR 511
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability - The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. Referred to Baslingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Para 12-20) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46 : AIR 2023 SC 471 : (2023) 1 SCR 809
Neutral Bench
Supreme Court imposes Rs 50k costs on litigant who sought 'neutral bench' without OBC / unreserved category judges to hear reservation matter. Lokendra Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540
Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan)
Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan); Section 18 - Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 - In Section 18, there is no distinction between the termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/enquiry. (Para 5-6) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2023 SC 539 : (2023) 1 SCR 949
Ownership
Mere living in a particular house would not mean it is under ownership of the person living there. Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Shobhan Pal Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762 : AIR 2023 SC 4255 : (2024) 1 SCC 693
Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Chhattisgarh)
Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Chhattisgarh); Rule 6 - Election Petition seeking the relief for re-counting of votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e., declarations as contemplated in Rule 6, would not be tenable in the eye of law. (Para 13, 15) Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661
Parliament
The Supreme Court refuses to entertain the PIL seeking framework for citizens to directly petition to parliament. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235
Partition
In partition suit, every interested party deemed to be a plaintiff; no bar in passing numerous preliminary decrees. A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi G., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 778
Partition can also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding. H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655 : AIR 2023 SC 3873
Findings relating to title in a simple suit for partition cannot bind third parties. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488 : AIR 2023 SC 3361
For interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074
Hindu Succession - If law gets amended before passing final decree in partition suit, parties can seek its benefit. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262
Settlement deed in a partition suit must include written consent of all parties; consent decree among only some parties not maintainable. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262
Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh)
Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh); Sections 3(1) and 3 (1-A) - Amendment and Validation Act, 1997 - It is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in an earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated. However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756
Passport
'Passport authority cannot retain passport without impounding': Supreme Court grants relief to husband in matrimonial dispute. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : AIR 2023 SC 3633 : (2023) 8 SCC 251
Patriarchal Remarks
'Courts should not further the notion that only male child will assist parents in old age; avoid patriarchal remarks'. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Penal Code 1860
Penal Code, 1860 - Constitutional Courts can impose fixed term sentence even in cases where death penalty was not proposed - "Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on. (Para 13) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Penal Code, 1860 - That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the 'rarest of the rare' cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well. (Para 15) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Explained. (Para 54) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option - The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - In a given case, where the offence is punishable under Section 302 of IPC, when the common intention is proved, but no overt act of assaulting the deceased is attributed to the accused who have been implicated based on Section 34, vicarious liability under Section 34 will be attracted. (Para 7) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - To bring a case within Section 34, it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or premeditation. It is possible to form a common intention just before or during the occurrence. (Para 7) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - A reading of Section 34 of the IPC reveals that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone. Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC would Page 4 of 8 come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime. (Para 8) Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036 : (2024) 1 SCC 443 : 2024 Cri LJ 628
Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the coaccused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence. (Para 13) Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036 : (2024) 1 SCC 443 : 2024 Cri LJ 628
Section 53 - Punishments
Penal Code, 1860; Section 53 - The majority view in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., 2016 (7) SCC 1 cannot be construed to mean that power to impose fixed term sentence cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence - When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of 'rarest of the rare' case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused. (Para 12) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Section 84 - Act of a person of unsound mind.
Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105 - The burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act - The mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in IPC. (Para 21) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2023 SC 193 : (2023) 3 SCC 372
Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105, 8 - The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged - The behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence has to be looked into. (Para 8-9) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 : (2023) 5 SCC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 823
Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - The existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act - A mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. (Para 4-7) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 : (2023) 5 SCC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 823
Section 86 - Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated
Penal Code, 1860; Section 86 - In so far as the impact of intoxication and causing death while in the state of intoxication is concerned, a reference to Section 86 of IPC is relevant which provides for the offence caused by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of his act. The said provision absolves the accused of committing an offence by reason of intoxication and incapability of knowing the nature of his act. However, for applying the said provision, it has to be noticed that such intoxication has to be administered to him against his will or without his knowledge which means that it should not be a voluntary intoxication. (Para 17) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Penal Code, 1860; Section 86 - the following twin conditions have to be satisfied. The first that the accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will. Secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him. (Para 19) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Penal Code, 1860; Section 86 - Not only the accused be intoxicated but also the level of his intoxication be such as to render him incapable of knowing and understanding what he is doing or likely to do. Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused. (Para 20) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Section 107 - Abetment of a thing
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 107 - To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. (Para 9) Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417 : 2024 Cri LJ 679
Section 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - To establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement between the parties. Further, the offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy. (Para 36) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 – Previous Sanction – Contended that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Distinguishing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, held, observations contained are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case or taken as judicially carving out an exception to a statutory prescription – Also held, no public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence and therefore, if the observations are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - For the charge of criminal conspiracy to be established, an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended common object. (Para 31) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - the accused cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy solely for having concealed the location of the incriminating materials / articles and, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of the minds. Given that all the other coaccused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they were innocent of the crime, the fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met. Needless to say, the charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. (Para 32, 33) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - The charge of criminal conspiracy requires meeting of the minds prior to commission of offence, and with four of the five appeals being allowed and only the present appellant being convicted, the basic requirement of the section, that is of two or more persons agreeing to or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not per se illegal but it is done by illegal means, is not met. (Para 34) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 and 302 - Accused were members of the unlawful assembly. No doubt that there is no specific role attributed to the present accused of assaulting the deceased. However, since the accused were members of the unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that such a person, for being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased. (Para 15) Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953 : AIR 2023 SC 5685 : 2024 CriLJ 81
Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 and 302 - Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. (Para 23) Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953 : AIR 2023 SC 5685 : 2024 CriLJ 81
Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. (Para 10) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2023 SC 1889 : (2023) 3 SCR 354
Penal Code 1860; Section 149 - if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. (Para 10.2) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2023 SC 1889 : (2023) 3 SCR 354
Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Cases involving several accused Persons - Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possible for the witness to describe the part played therein by each of such persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of the members' involvement especially regarding which or what act. (Para 17.8) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965