Supreme Court Criminal Digest- March 2023

Bail - All prosecuting agencies / State Governments / UTs should issue directions to the Public Prosecutors so that neither in pleadings nor in arguments, is a stand taken contrary to the legal position enunciated by this Court. The circulation in this behalf should be made through the Director of Prosecution and training programmes be organized to keep on updating the Prosecutors in this behalf. (Para IV) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Bail - Day of remand should be included for considering default bail claim: Supreme Court answers reference. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Bail - Ensure basic essentials such as FIR number, police station are recorded in bail orders: Supreme Court to all High Courts. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Bail - 'Large number of remand orders passed in violation of law are from Uttar Pradesh': Supreme Court seeks Allahabad HC's intervention. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Bail - Supreme Court displeased that Magistrates are passing custody orders in violation of the directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - It is the duty of the High Courts that it ensures that the subordinate judiciary under their supervision follows the law of the land. If such orders are being passed by some Magistrates it may even require some judicial work to be withdrawn and the magistrate to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation of their skills. (Para ii) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Bail - Supreme Court warns magistrates who don't follow judgments on bail; says they might be taken off from judicial work & sent for training. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Bail can be cancelled if serious offences are subsequently added to FIR': Supreme Court sets aside bail in 'casting couch' case. Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 438 - Is it necessary to exhaust remedy available in Sessions Court before approaching High Court?- Whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 has discretion not to entertain such an application on the ground that the applicant must first apply to the Court of Sessions - SC to consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 154 - Principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR. (Para 30) State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 ought to be exercised sparingly and would require much stronger evidence than near probability of the accused person’s complicity. The test elucidated by the Constitution Bench is as under -The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 438 - Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a 'casting couch' rape case - The nature and gravity of the alleged offence has been disregarded by the HC - So has the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the appellant/prosecutrix been ignored. (Para 22) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Courts should endeavour to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the bail orders. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remand - There seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. (Para 10) Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Transfer of Investigation to CBI - The power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the expertise. Royden Harold Buthello v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Delay in registering FIR - The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case. (Para 31) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The day of remand is to be included for considering a claim for default bail - the stipulated 60/90 day remand period under Section 167 CrPC ought to be computed from the date when a Magistrate authorizes remand - In cases where the chargesheet / final report is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, the accused in our considered opinion would be entitled to default bail. In other words, the very moment the stipulated 60/90 day remand period expires, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues to the accused - 3 judge bench answers reference. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 - the cognizance is taken of an offence and not of the offender - As such the phrase “taking cognizance” has nowhere been defined in the Cr.PC, however has been interpreted by this Court to mean “become aware of” or “to take notice of judicially. (Para 10) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190, 203 - an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. that the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 200 - No doubt, summoning of an accused is a serious matter and therefore the Magistrate before issuing the summons to the accused is obliged to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face any frivolous complaint, nonetheless one of the objects of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also to enable the Magistrate to prosecute a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Just as it is necessary to curtail vexatious and frivolous complaints against innocent persons, it is equally essential to punish the guilty after conducting a fair trial. (Para 18) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 256 - Not proper to acquit the accused merely for the non-appearance of the complainant who was already examined. BLS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajwant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 256 - Where the complainant had already been examined as a witness in the case, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order of acquittal merely on non-appearance of the complainant. BLS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajwant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - It is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Iudicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like ‘false’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Settled principles summarized. (Para 15) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Supreme Court Summarises 10 well-settled principles. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Written statement of the accused has to be considered in the light of prosecution evidence. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 (5) - Once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. (Para 17) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 Cr.P.C. power is to be exercised only if strong & cogent evidence occurs against a person. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal- Scope of interference - Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when his application for bail was considered and a favourable order was passed. The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences. The investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5)3 and 439(2)34 Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter XXXII of the Statute that deals with provisions relating to bails and bonds. (Para 20) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Can HCs refuse to entertain anticipatory bail pleas for not exhausting Sessions Court remedy? Supreme Court to Consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Victim has right to be heard in bail application of the accused - No doubt, the State was present and was represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not have been whittled down for this reason alone. In a crime of this nature where ordinarily, there is no other witness except for the prosecutrix herself, it was all the more incumbent for the High Court to have lent its ear to the appellant. (Para 23, 24) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court criticises Kerala HC for overstepping jurisdiction to pass general orders - High Court in its overzealous approach" exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by enlarging the scope of the petition and crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint by passing such orders under the guise of doing real and substantial justice. (Para 28) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court opines that it is desirable that High Courts refrain from quashing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act even if it suspected that the case is registered by a new government against officers who supported the previous government-it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. (Para 74) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Criminal Law - Accused can't claim right of hearing before registration of FIR. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Criminal Law - Constitutional Courts can impose life sentence for fixed term without remission even in cases where the death penalty wasn't imposed. Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Criminal Law - Possible that police set up false case after killing deceased in the process of arrest': Supreme Court acquits 4 in 1989 murder case. Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Criminal Law - Smuggling & Foreign Exchange Manipulations - Necessary to deprive persons engaged in such acts of their ill gotten gains. Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Criminal Law - Supreme Court dismisses Cardinal George Alencherry's plea to quash criminal cases over land scam. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Criminal Trial - Delay in sending FIR - Unless serious prejudice is caused, mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate would not, by itself, have a negative effect on the case of the prosecution. One of the external checks against ante-dating or antetiming an FIR is the time of its dispatch to the Magistrate or its receipt by the Magistrate. A dispatch of a copy of the FIR forthwith ensures that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. (Para 17.6) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Criminal Trial - Delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate - It is the settled position of law that each and every delay caused is not fatal to a case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. In the present case, though, while there is reliance at the Bar on this principle no submission has been made to show prejudice having been caused to the accused. Statements sans adequate backing cannot sway the Court. Even the delay in the receipt of the FIR with the concerned Magistrate cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is not a case of non-compliance of provisions equally the delay is not inordinate so as to cast any doubt. (Para 20) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Criminal Trial - Power of Court of Appeal - The Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an order of acquittal as in the order of conviction, along with the rider of presumption of innocence which continues across all stages of a case. Such Court should give due importance to the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. The High Court, being the First Appellate Court must discuss/re-appreciate the evidence on record. Failure to do so is a good ground enough to remand the matter for consideration. (Para 17.9) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Criminal Trial - Preponderance of probabilities - To entitle a person to the benefit of a doubt arising from a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. (Para 17.5) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Criminal Trial - The Courts must refrain from committing such grave errors in the future, whereby innocent people are made to suffer incarceration for over a period of nearly two decades, without proper appreciation of evidence. (Para 19) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Criminal Trial - The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth. The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted. Further, the duty of the Trial Court is to carefully scrutinise the evidence, try to find out the truth on the basis of evidence led. Wherever necessary the Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then the judgment of the Trial Court may be said to be vitiated. [Para 13] Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Death Penalty - Supreme Court commutes death sentence for kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old child to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission of sentence-the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal’. (Para 89) Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Evidence Act 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence – Explained. (Para 8 to 10) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Evidence Act 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Evidence Act 1872 - In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances - The basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances. (Para 12, 15) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act 1872 - It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act 1872; Section 9 - Test Identification Parade - The entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source - Investigation parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness. (Para 9) Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - Every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt - All the circumstances must be consistently pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (Para 10) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - When two views are possible, view favouring accused innocence to be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Evidence Act, 1872 - Effect of omissions, deficiencies - Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution’s case. (Para 17.2) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-judicial Confession - It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. (Para 15) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful. (Para 21) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, independent corroboration needed. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act, 1872 - Hostile Witness - a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding the commission of offence is admissible. Merely because there is deviation from the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termed totally unreliable; b) the evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction. c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders, prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seek corroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution. Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses. (Para 17.1) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872 - In cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Evidence Act, 1872 - In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness. (Para 8) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is not the quantity but the quality of witnesses and evidence that can either make or break the case of the prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the testimonies of the witnesses that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality. (Para 10) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is the duty of the prosecution to establish use of the weapon discovered in the commission of the crime. Failure to do so may cause aberration in the course of justice. (Para 15) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - Law relating to Circumstantial Evidence– Discussed. (Para 5 - 11) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Evidence Act, 1872 - Mere fact of commission of suicide itself not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act. Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Evidence Act, 1872 - Murder trial - Principle of corpus delicti – non-recovery of the corpse would have relevance in considering the links of chain of circumstances. (Para 16) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - Reliance on Single Witness - If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner. (Para 17.3) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872 - Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence - Only such evidence is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance with law. (Para 8) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - Test Identification Parade doesn't have much value when the accused is already known to witness. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Evidence Act, 1872 - Testimony of a close relative - A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. (Para 17.4) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Last seen theory - On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of deceased etc., the accused is bound to give an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established – pleading securely to the conviction of the accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. (Para 17.7) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 113A - Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. (Para 14) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 69 - In the event where attesting witnesses may have died, or cannot be found, the propounder is not helpless, as Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable. (Para 17) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 90 - Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills - Wills have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 13) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Juvenile - Death Penalty - Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder of a minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence. Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Juvenile - Prisoner awarded death penalty for five murders found to be a juvenile at the time of offence in 1994 - Supreme Court orders release forthwith. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 9 (2) - Once the applicant has discharged his onus, in support of his claim of juvenility by producing the date of birth certificate from the school, the State had to come up with any compelling contradictory evidence to show that the recordal of his date of birth in the admission register was false. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 9 (2) - Death penalty case reopened to inquire into juvenility claim - Convict found to be a juvenile after 28 years of offence - Supreme Court orders release. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 9 (2) - So far as the procedure for making an inquiry by the Court, Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act does not prescribe scrupulously following trial procedure, as stipulated in the 1973 Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015; Section 18 - The JJB having found a child to be in conflict with law who may have committed a petty or serious offence and where heinous offence is committed, the child should be below 16 years, can pass various orders under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) and also sub-section (2). However, the net result is that whatever punishment is to be provided, the same cannot exceed a period of three years and the JJB has to take full care of ensuring the best facilities that could be provided to the child for providing reformative services including 19 education, skill development, counselling and psychiatric support. (Para 16) Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015; Section 9(3) - A trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child - It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. (Para 30-33) Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Murder Trial - 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

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

Murder Trial - Supreme Court acquits a man setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Murder Trial - Supreme Court acquits man convicted for allegedly killing his wife thirty-five years ago - Reverses concurrent findings of trial court and High Court - Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt. Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Murder Trial - Whether on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed to suffer incarceration for life? Held, Credible testimony of a single eyewitness sufficient to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions. (Para 21) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

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

Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - 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 - 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

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

Parole - All those undertrial prisoners and convicts who have been released on emergency parole / interim bail pursuant to the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee in compliance of the orders passed by this Court have to surrender before the concerned prison authorities within 15 days. In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Parole - Period of emergency parole granted on recommendation of HPC during COVID-19 cannot be counted towards actual sentence period. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Patriarchal Statements - Courts should avoid patriarchal statements in judgments - It does not and should not matter for a constitutional court whether the young child was a male child or a female child. The murder remains equally tragic. Courts should also not indulge in furthering the notion that only a male child furthers family lineage or is able to assist the parents in old age. Such remarks involuntarily further patriarchal value judgements that courts should avoid regardless of the context. (Para 75) Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Penal Code 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court reverses concurrent findings of guilt entered by the trial court and High Court - Says exceptional case where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Penal Code 1860; Section 375 Exception 2 - Sex with minor wife aged 16 years - Supreme Court acquits husband relying on exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

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

Penal Code, 1860 - Mere breach of contract can't be the basis for a criminal case for cheating. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Penal Code, 1860 - Mere intimidation to silence kidnapped child victim not sufficient to prove threat to life & limb. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w. 34 - In a case rested on circumstantial evidence and ‘last seen’ theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstances, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the accused. (Para 24) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 364A – Kidnapping for ransom vis-à-vis kidnapping simpliciter – Proof of kidnapping for ransom – Punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such has a higher evidentiary threshold – Three stages or components, namely, first, kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; second, threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and third, when the demand is not met, then causing death – Fulfilment of second ingredient, namely, threat to cause death or hurt – Intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making them silent not adequate – Held, prosecution’s case did not prove second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt as a result of the victim’s statement being subsequently modified to reflect crucial differences that would enable the prosecution to drive home the kidnapping for ransom charge – Further held, conviction under Section 364A ought to be altered in exercise of power under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure into the lesser offence under Section 363 – Appeal partly allowed. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Penal Code, 1860 - Sex with minor wife: Supreme Court acquits husband of rape relying on exception 2 to Sec 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

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

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - In case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. (Para 34) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused would assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (Para 26) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court sets aside conviction in a murder case - Notes that the Trial Court and the High Court grossly erred in their appreciation of evidence. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

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

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 306, 107 - In order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established - In order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. (Para 6-10) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Constitution Bench Judgment allowing circumstantial evidence does not dilute requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption is the main reason for not achieving equal distribution of wealth; botched investigations of scams a bigger scam. State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act - Conviction set aside as demand was not proved. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Desirable that FIRs in corruption cases aren't quashed at the investigation stage: Supreme Court to High Courts. State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the present case, there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - It is desirable that High Courts maintain a "hands-off" approach and not quash FIRs relating to corruption cases at investigation stage-This is because, it is difficult to form an opinion conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the investigation is complete -The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence. (Para 74) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Supreme Court acquits man accused of taking Rs 300 bribe twenty years ago. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the complainant did not produce a copy of the application made by him for providing electricity meter - the complainant did not clearly tell that he had given such application. In absence of proof of making such application, the prosecution’s case regarding demand of bribe for installing new electricity meter becomes doubtful. (Para 18) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Zero Tolerance to Corruption - Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. (Para 49) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - Demand of Gratification - When we consider the issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7, it cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration - Every demand made for payment of money is not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than mere demand for money. (Para 16, 17) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 20 and 7 - The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption. (Para 11) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 – In absence of direct evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence – Also, allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt - the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary for a conviction under the Act does not dilute the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 - The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved and laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Right to Speedy Trial - Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable - Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Mere membership of unlawful organization is UAPA offence: Supreme Court overrules 2011 precedents. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - No vagueness in UAPA provision criminalising membership of banned organisation; no chilling effect. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 10(a)(i) does not suffer from any vagueness and/or on the ground unreasonable and/or disproportionate. (Para 16.1) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Arup Bhuyan v. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC 377 and Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam, 2011 (3) SCC 380 taking the view that under Section 3(5) of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence and does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence and reading down the said provisions to mean that over and 2 above the membership of a banned organization there must be an overt act and/or further criminal activities and adding the element of mens rea are held to be not a good law. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Upholds the Constitutionality of Section 10(a)(i) - Overrules the judgments in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, Indra Das v. State of Assam and State of Kerala v. Raneef which held that mere membership of a banned association is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied with some overt violent-Court ought not to have read down Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 more particularly when neither the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 was under challenge nor the Union of India was heard. (Para 11.5, 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - When an association is declared unlawful by notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective of sub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be a member of such association is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine under Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Mere possibility of misuse cannot be a ground and/or relevant consideration while considering the constitutionality. (Para 16) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Once an organization is declared unlawful after due procedure and despite that a person who is a member of such unlawful association continues to be a member of such unlawful association then he has to face the consequences and is subjected to the penal provisions as provided under Section 10 more particularly Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 14.5) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Words and Phrases - Honourable Acquittal - The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by expressions “honourable acquittal”. (Para 8-11) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150