Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- December 2022 (Citation 999-1041)

Advocates Act 1961 - Supreme Court Rules - Advocates-on-Record System - Supreme Court has authority to prescribe who can act or plead in the court as per Article 145 of the Constitution read along with Section 52(b) of The Advocates Act, 1961 - Challenge against AoR system dismissed. Nandini Sharma v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 - Supreme Court directs Centre and IITs to follow the reservation and act as per the reservations provided under the Act. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution Proceedings - The woes of a decree holder begin after obtaining a decree. It is in execution that a decree holder is confronted with an unimaginably large number of obstacles. (Para 1) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - The mere dismissal of the first application on the ground of default may not result in the decree holder being precluded from filing a fresh execution petition provided it is within time. (Para 21) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 46, 46A - Execution Court should have first attached the debt under Order 21 Rule 46 before proceeding to pass the order under Order 21 Rule 46A - Order 21 Rule 46A in the case of debt must be understood as a debt spoken of in Order 21 Rule 46 of CPC and the debt must have been attached under Order 21 Rule 46 - Order 21 Rule 46A excepts, debt secured by a mortgage or a charge. Once these conditions are fulfilled, then upon an application being made by the 'attaching creditor' a notice may be issued to the garnishee. (Para 27- 28) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 46, 46A - The exception is in regard to 'such other property' which though not in the possession of the judgment debtor, is property deposited or is in the custody of any Court - In regard to such property Order 21 Rule 46 and therefore Order 21 Rule 46A will not apply. (Para 25) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXX Rule 4 and Order XXII Rule 10 - The death of one of the partners does not foreclose the continuation of the civil proceedings initiated by the firm - Where two persons have sued in the name of a partnership firm and if one of such persons dies during the pendency of the proceedings, it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to such proceedings, which shall continue in accordance with law. (Para 6-11) Sumer Singh Galundia v. Jeevan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIII Rule 1 - When having prima facie found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata it cannot be said that the Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons - However, observations that the suit is barred by res judicata and/or on no cause of action shall be treated confine to deciding the application to sue as indigent person only. (Para 6.4 - 6.6) Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIII Rules 1, 7, 8 - If the application to sue as indigent person is granted thereafter the suit shall be numbered and registered - Till then the plaint/suit shall be at pre-numbered and pre-registered stage. (Para 6.2) Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 38, 39 - For the effective working of Section 39 of CPC, in other words, there must be a Court which has passed a decree - When Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC are not as such applicable, the decree holder may seek to execute the decree in any Court which otherwise has jurisdiction. (Para 24) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Power has to be excercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Supreme Court Constitution Bench issues elaborate guidelines on the exercise of powers to summon additional accused. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. (Para 33) Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter VIII; Section 107,117 - The provisions of Chapter VIII are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a vehicle for punishment - The object of furnishing security and/or executing a bond under Chapter VIII is not to augment the state exchequer but to avoid any possible breach of peace for maintaining public peace and tranquillity - The Magistrate while ordering security under Section 117 has to take into consideration the status and position of the person to decide the quantum of security/bond; and cannot alter the purpose of the provisions from preventive to punitive by imposing heavy quantum of security/bond, which a person might be unable to pay. The demand of excessive and arbitrary amount of security/bond stultifies the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Code, which remains impermissible. (Para 11-12) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter XVII - Objects of provisions regarding framing of charge - To make the accused aware of the accusations against him on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking to convict him - Accused should be in a position to effectively defend himself. An accused can properly defend himself provided he is clearly informed about the nature of the allegations against him before the actual trial starts. (Para 16-17) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 107 - The scope and nature of Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not punitive - It aims at ensuring that there be no breach of peace and that the public tranquillity be not disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act. The action being preventive in nature is not based on any overt act but is intended to forestall the potential danger to serve the interests of public at large. (Para 11) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190, 200 - The second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint. (Para 14) B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind. (Para 16) B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 300 - Section 300 of the CrPC places a bar wherein, a person who has already been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence arising out of the same facts, and has either been acquitted or convicted of such offence cannot be tried again for the same offence as well as on the same facts for any other offence as long as such acquittal or conviction remains in force. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality - Accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. (Para 22) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 427 - Supreme Court orders that sentences in nine cases against an appellant for theft of electricity shall run concurrently- The Court notes that serious miscarriage will be caused if the appellant is to serve 18 years of sentence for these offences. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Bombay HC direction to give to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event the State intends to arrest him - Manifestly Incorrect - Such a direction could not have been issued. Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - ISRO Espionage Case - SC set aside the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in 2021 granting anticipatory bail of five former police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in 1994 ISRO espionage case -The Court remitted the bail applications back to the High Court and asked the High Court to decide the same as early as possible. CBI v. Siby Mathew, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Prisoners in jail despite getting bail as they can't fulfil conditions - Supreme Court directs States to furnish data of undertrial prisoners who remain in bail as they can't satisfy surety or comply with other conditions. Sonadhar v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 446 - Discretionary power to the Court to remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only, after recording its reasons for doing so - Even when a person fails to show sufficient cause as to forfeiture of the bond amount, the Court is not bound to direct payment or recovery of the entire bond amount. The Court can exercise its discretion and remit some portion of the bond owing to the nature of the offence, status and position of the person, and having regard to other facts and circumstances of the case or when the amount of bond is unduly excessive. (Para 13) Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Complainant alleged that his signature on a sale deed has been forged - Later filed civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deed - High Court refused to quash the complaint - While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said : A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court - This order (1) will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the disputed sale deed is forged (2) shall not be cited as a precedent. R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - No explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint - While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint - While the court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities. (Para 24-26) Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to quash the criminal proceedings or even to acquit the accused. (Para 14) R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The court can exercise its powers to quash a criminal complaint, provided that the evidence adduced is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, or no legal evidence has been presented - For the quashing of a criminal complaint, the Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence - Broad guidelines for quashing a criminal complaint. Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. (Para 16) R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice - Courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law. (Para 28) Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 215 and 464 - When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether any failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to frame a charge or error in the charge, the Court is duty bound to examine the entire record of the trial including all exhibited documents, depositions and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313. (Para 20) Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227, 228 - The stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. As per Section 228 Cr.P.C. only thereafter and if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Court shall frame the charge. (Para 7) Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227, 228, 300 - It is at the stage of discharge that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C - Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. (Para 7-8) Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - A pure question of law may be permitted to be raised in an appeal generated by the grant of special leave. (Para 22) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2) - Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Supreme Court's duty to protect personal liberty - No case is too small for the Court -The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles. Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence. CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court does not have the power even under Articles 226 or Section 482 CrPC to direct the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner. State of West Bengal v. Sandip Biswas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Constitution of India,1950 ; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of an alternate remedy by itself cannot exclude the writ jurisdiction of the High Court -A constitutional remedy cannot be barred or excluded as when the High Court exercises its power under Article 226, it cannot be a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction - Statute may provide for an alternate forum to which the High Court may relegate the party in an appropriate case- It has been a self-imposed restraint which is fairly faithfully adhered to by the High Courts and it is largely a matter of discretion. Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003 (Para 179)

Contract Act, 1872; Section 74 - All pre­estimated amounts which are specified to be paid on account of breach by any party under a contract are covered by Section 74 of Contract Act - In a scenario where the contractual terms clearly provide the factum of the pre estimate amount being in the nature of 'earnest money', the onus to prove that the same was 'penal' in nature squarely lies on the party seeking refund of the same. Failure to discharge such burden would treat any pre­estimated amount stipulated in the contract as a 'genuine pre­estimate of loss'. (Para 35) Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat) - Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra) - Where a person commits no unlawful activity after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such circumstances, the person cannot be arrested under the said Act on account of the offences committed by him before coming into force of the said Act, even if, he is found guilty of the same. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then, such person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then, he is absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. But, if he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that the State has to wait till, he commits two acts of which cognizance is taken by the Court after coming into force. The same principle would apply, even in the case of the 2015 Act. (Para 51) State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat); Section 3 - The offence of 'organised crime' could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. (Para 51) State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt - There is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between 'may' and 'must'. For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused - The facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Delegated Legislation - Delegated legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent Act. If it does, it is ultra vires and cannot be given any effect -Rules or regulation cannot be made to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it. What is permitted is the delegation of ancillary or subordinating legislative functions, or, what is fictionally called, a power to fill up details - Fine distinction between a rule and regulation and also the power of the delegate authority to frame such rules or regulation - (Para 64-81) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Doctrine of Ultra Vires - Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or statute law or the general law; there may be noncompliance with the procedural requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires. (Para 65) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Electricity Act, 2013; Section 126 - Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (Kerala); Regulation 153(15) - Regulation 153(15) of the Code 2014 is declared to be invalid being inconsistent with the provision of Section 126. (Para 82, 89) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Electricity Act, 2013; Section 126(6) - Consumption of electricity in excess of the connected load/contracted load would amount to 'unauthorised use of electricity' under explanation (b) to Section 126(6). (Para 54-58) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Evidence Act 1872; Section 154 - the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. (Para 67) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Foreigners Act 1946 – Citizenship - Supreme Court orders the release of a 62-year old man named Mohammad Qamar, who has been under detention in a Foreigners Detention Centre since 2015 on being adjudged that he belonged to Pakistan and that he was not an Indian citizen - The Court directed the Union Government to take a decision on granting him Long Term Visa. Ana Parveen v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 9, 26 - Orders giving visitation rights or temporary child custody cannot be passed in a proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights - A separate and independent petition under Section 26 has to be filed. Priyanka v. Santoshkumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

Hindu Succession Act, 1955; Section 2(2), 6 - Female member of the Scheduled Tribe is not entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act - It is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which it is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe - Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. (Para 7-7.2) Kamla Neti v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

Interpretation of Statutes - Strict Interpretation - Substantive law should be construed strictly so as to give effect and protection to the substantive rights unless the statute otherwise intends. Strict construction is one which limits the application of the statute by the words used - The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalised without a clear letter of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes - They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what might possibly have been intended. Instead, they are concerned with what has actually been said. (Para 46-47) State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Judges Appointment - Collegium reiterations are binding - Supreme Court asks Centre to explain by reiterated names are sent back to the collegium- 10 names reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium sent back by the Central Government- SC asks Attorney General as to how under the Scheme of law prevalent, are reiterated names sent back - Refers to para 486, clause 5 of the second Judges case reported in 1993 (4) SCC 441 - sending back a second time reiterated names would be in breach of this direction. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Judges Appointment - Delay in finalizing the appointments discouraging eminent lawyers from joining the bench-There has been reluctance on the part of the successful lawyers to accept the honour and what we have stated in our last order is out of the experience of not being able to persuade such eminent people to join the Bench with one factor largely weighing in with them apart from any other issue, i.e. the long prolonged process of appointment and putting their career on hold. Thus on one hand, they are making a monetary sacrifice to come on to the Bench in a larger cause of justice but in that process they do not want their life to be dragged into an uncertainty. This has also resulted in at times, persons withdrawing their consent who are recommended to be elevated. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Judges Appointment - Memorandum of Procedure is final - The final view of the collegium was expressed in the MoP which was received by the Govt. on 13.03.2017- The undisputed legal position that the MoP is final. That this does not mean that if the Government suggests some changes or improvements in the MoP, that cannot be looked into but till that happens, the MoP as existing would apply. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Judges Appointment - Supreme Court disapproves Centre splitting up collegium recommendation - When the recommendations are cleared by the Supreme Court, the seniority set out therein must be followed. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Legislation - It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court. (Para 6.1) Kamla Neti v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 23 - Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of Section 23(1) - When it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in Section 23(1) are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. (Para 13-14) Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

Moral Policing - Supreme Court upholds dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night - Condemns moral policing by police. CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Even if the income of the claimant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable him from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors - In cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects - Just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place. (Para 18-20) Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager UPSRTC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income of deceased. (Para 9) Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Socio-economic background of the claimants must be considered while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability - Persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. (Para 27-29) Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager UPSRTC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases - Disagreed with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Tribunal. Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Section 149 - The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the amended Rules. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. It is made clear here that the claimant(s) are not required to apply before Supreme Court Court seeking transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 159 - Supreme Court issues a slew of directions for immediate registration of First Accident Report by the Police immediately after a motor vehicle accident -The Court directed the Police department of all states to develop a specialized unit and post trained police officers in every police station within three months for the effective implementation of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability - Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. (Para 10) Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 20 - Supreme Court sets aside conviction - gives benefit of doubt after noting gaps in the prosecution case - arrest memo, body search memo not proved - site plan wrongly prepared - no independent witnesses. Amar Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 499, 500 - First defamation complaint dismissed by Magistrate observing that there is no prima facie case as it falls under fourth exception - Revision petition before HC filed was withdrawn - Second complaint filed before Magistrate with same set of facts - High Court quashed the complaint - While dismissing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Even if the order of Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the first complaint was erroneous in law, it does not amount to non­application of mind by the trial court. B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Constitution Bench answers reference on whether circumstantial evidence can be used to prove demand of illegal gratification- In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. (Para 70) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Public Employment - Rejection of candidature on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A - The offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court - There was no suppression of material fact - Candidate could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground. Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Public Employment - The cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Dharminder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Reservation in IITs - Supreme Court directed the Central government and the Indian Institutes of Technology to follow the reservation policy for admission in research degree programmes and recruitment of faculty members as provided under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 [2019 Act]. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Right to Information Act, 2005 - Discussions of Supreme Court collegium -Discussions of collegium are not required to be disclosed in public domain under the RTI Act - Whatever is discussed shall not be in the public domain - Petition seeking details of the collegium meeting of December 12, 2018 dismissed - Petitioner relied on news reports about the statements given by a former collegium member that certain decisions were finalized in the said collegium meeting, which were reversed after his retirement. (Para 5, 5.1) Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Service Law - A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it. (Para 21) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

Service Law - Interference with disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution -The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion. (Para 17) CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Service Law - Once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio the services rendered cannot be considered / counted for the purpose of pension. Dr. Rajasree M.S. v. Professor (Dr) Sreejith PS,, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

Service Law - Principle governing changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with respect to the selection process but not the qualification or eligibility-In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job. (Para 32) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

Service Law - Supreme Court dismisses the review against the judgment in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871 which set aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Kerala Technological University in 2019. Dr. Rajasree M.S. v. Professor (Dr) Sreejith PS,, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Contract Act, 1872; Section 55 - Defense under Section 55 of Contract Act is valid against anyone who is seeking the relief of specific performance. Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 22(2) - Unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money. (Para 31) Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Supreme Court Collegium - The actual resolution passed by the Collegium only can be said to be a final decision of the Collegium and till then at the most, it can be said to be a tentative decision during the consultation -During the consultation if some discussion takes place but no final decision is taken and no resolution is drawn, it cannot be said that any final decision is taken by the Collegium -only the final resolution and the final decision is required to be uploaded on the Supreme Court's website. (Para 5, 5.1) Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - UP Housing and Development Board's function does not include fixing its employees' service conditions- Judgment in State of U.P. vs. Preetam Singh & Ors. 2014 (15) SCC 774 approved. State of U.P. v. Virendra Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

Wakf Act, 1995 - Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - There is a distinction between a public charitable Trust and Wakf - A Muslim Public Trust registered under the 1950 Act need not be a Wakf under the Act - However, there are public Trusts registered under the 1950 Act which are in fact, Wakf which fall under Section 28 of the 1950 Act. They must undoubtedly come within the regime of the the Wakf Act, 1995 - What was once a Wakf before the 1950 Act, if it is registered under the 1950 Act, with the commencement of the Act, such a public Trust would necessarily come under the ambit of the Wakf Act, 1995. (Para 178, 183) Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

Wakf Act, 1995; Section 4 - The making of survey is not a mere administrative act but it is to be informed by a quasi-judicial inquiry. It is also the law that the surveyor has the power to find whether a particular institution is a Wakf. (Para 145) Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
2. Amar Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002
3. Ana Parveen v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1038
4. Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
5. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012
6. B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022
7. Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020
8. CBI v. Siby Mathew, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
9. Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019
10. CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036
11. Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026
12. Dr. Rajasree M.S. v. Professor (Dr) Sreejith PS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1023
13. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
14. Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033
15. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Dharminder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999
16. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032
17. Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
18. Kalicharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
19. Kamla Neti v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
20. Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034
21. Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
22. Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager UPSRTC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017
23. Nandini Sharma v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1018
24. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
25. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
26. Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
27. Priyanka v. Santoshkumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1021
28. R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030
29. Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016
30. Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025
31. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1037
32. Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
33. Sonadhar v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1007
34. State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031
35. State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028
36. State of U.P. v. Virendra Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1001
37. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
38. State of West Bengal v. Sandip Biswas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024
39. Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011
40. Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
41. Sumer Singh Galundia v. Jeevan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
42. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039
43. Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010