SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Access to Justice

Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Law

Notification Issued by Central Govt not invalid merely because it's not issued in the President's name. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

The Supreme Court directs the Ministry of Law & Justice to conduct judicial impact assessment of all Tribunals at the Earliest. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Supreme Court praises Orissa High Court for creatively using technology; Says other HCs should replicate it. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

'Union Govt has power to abolish State Administrative Tribunal': Supreme Court affirms abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Adverse Remarks

Adverse Remarks During Hearings – Live Broadcast and Virtual Hearings – Essential for courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against parties involved – Remarks may be passed only with proper justification, in the right forum, and if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice – Stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court proceedings due to advent of live broadcast and virtual hearings – Held, remarks liable to be expunged for having caused injury to the appellant’s reputation on account of being widely circulated by the media – Appeal allowed. Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh P.S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Armed Forces

High Courts can entertain challenges to orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal: Supreme Court overruled its Judgment. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Bail & Remand

'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

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

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

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

Central Excise

Only retail sale can claim assessment benefits under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Community Certificate

Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case - Affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Company Law

Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of Schedule III of Sebi Stock Broker Regulations. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Contempt of Court

Advocate making baseless allegation that another lawyer took money in judge's name; Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Corruption

Supreme Court acquits man accused of taking rs 300 bribe twenty years ago. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigating Circumstances - The state must equally place all material and circumstances on the record bearing on the probability of reform. Many such materials and aspects are within the knowledge of the state which has had custody of the accused both before and after the conviction. Moreover, the court cannot be an indifferent by-stander in the process. The process and powers of the court may be utilised to ensure that such material is made available to it to form a just sentencing decision bearing on the probability of reform. (Para 79) Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Electricity

Diversion of gas to other generating stations is not sufficient ground to seek compensation when PPA has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Evidence Law

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

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 of 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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Judgments

Reliance of Foreign Judgments - Considering the different position of laws in US and in our country more particularly faced with Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(4) of the Constitution of India under which the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and is not an absolute right and the constitution permits the Parliament to frame the laws taking into consideration the public order and/or the sovereignty of India, without noticing the differences in American Laws and the Indian laws, this Court in the case of Arup Bhuyan (supra) and Raneep (supra) has erred in straightway and directly following the US Supreme Court decisions and that too without adverting to the differences and the position of laws in India. (Para 13) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Insolvency

IBC - Once a resolution plan is approved, no modifications are permissible. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Interpretation of Statutes

When any provision of Parliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of Union of India it is likely to cause enormous harm to the interest of the State. (Para 11.2) Reading down the provision of a statute cannot be resorted to when the meaning of a provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear. (Para 11.4) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

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

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

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

Natural Justice

Principles of Natural Justice - The decision to establish, continue or abolish the OAT is in the nature of a policy formulated and implemented by the State Government (acting with the Union Government under the Administrative Tribunals Act). The public at large does not have a right to be heard before a policy is formulated and implemented. (Para 86) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

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

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

Rent Law

Subletting by tenant is impermissible under Bombay Rent Control Act unless contract allows it. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Service Law

Service of Employees in Zilla Parishad should be counted for seniority when ZP has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Pension - Supreme Court holds that the employees of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pension on a par with Government employees - Employees of a body corporate created by the State cannot be treated as State Government employees in all respects. Such a corollary proposition would practically amount to merging of the Board with the State Government - Entitlement of pension will be as per the Regulations of the Board. (Para 16.1) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Payment for Home Guards - Home Guards working in the State of Odisha are entitled to Duty Allowance as per the minimum amount of pay to which the police personnel in the State is entitled to. It further clarified that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the police personnel of the State and the Duty Allowance to be paid to the Home Guards should be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. (Para 9, 10) Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Unlawful Aactivites

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

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

Supreme Court

'SCBA cannot assert right over the entire land allotted to SC': Supreme Court refuses to consider association's plea on judicial side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Wildlife

Time Limit under Rule 4(2) of Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules cannot be relaxed. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

 STATUTE WISE INDEX

Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - The relevant State Government has the implied power to issue a request to abolish the SAT in its state to the Union Government. The Union Government in turn has the implied power to rescind the notification by which that SAT was established, thereby abolishing the SAT. (Para 59) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the Odisha Administrative Tribunal because the doctrine cannot ordinarily be applied in cases where the government is formulating and implementing a policy. (Para 128 (f)) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 4(A) - For a sale of goods to qualify for assessment benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, it must be a retail sale, and there must be a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix a retail price on the goods for a sale to be considered a retail sale. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223

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

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - It is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are usually, not to be interfered with. However, it is only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, this Court exercises its wide powers where there is travesty of justice and when absurd and erroneous conclusions are drawn by the Courts below. We are of the opinion that this is one such case fit for exercising the powers entrusted to us as a duty under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 17) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Power of the Supreme Court - In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special leave, being ex facie perverse. (Para 17.10) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in respect of cases where concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Courts – If doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. (Para 13) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights. (Para 23) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices should not have been entertained by the High Court, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging orders of Armed Forces Tribunal are maintainable - To deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea of Supreme Court Bar Association for conversion of plot allotted to the Court as lawyers' chambers cannot be entertained on the judicial side - However, matter left open to be considered on the administrative side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - SC refuses to entertain petition seeking a framework which would allow citizens to petition directly to the Parliament - The reliefs which have been sought fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament. Such directions cannot be issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants’ argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings against advocate for raising frivolous allegation that another lawyer was taking money from clients in the name of judges - Reduces penalty from Rupees 2 lakhs to Rs 1 Lakh. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Electricity Act, 2003 - Diversion of gas to other generating stations not sufficient ground to seek compensation when Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

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 - 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 - 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; 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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Once the Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with the mandate of the IBC Code. (Para 22) SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 439 read with Clause (5) of Appendix IV - Service of employees in Zilla Parishad (ZP) should be counted for seniority when Zilla Parishad has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Clause 5(c), including its first proviso, occupies this field of law till date. The provision explicitly deals with protection of conditions of service of the officers and servants who were earlier employed in a local authority like a ZP, and who have been subsequently absorbed into a Municipal Corporation. It expressly protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well. (Para 21) Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229

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 - 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; 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 - 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

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 - 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 - 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; 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

Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay) - In the ordinary course and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, unless the contract itself permits sub-letting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sub-let the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein - The very act of execution of the assignment document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate and did not require anything further. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub­Brokers) Regulations, 1992. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - Object behind enacting the Act, 1976 is to provide for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, and at the same time to ensure effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulation - It is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains. It also provides that such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth tax, income tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner and to nail such persons who are holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the name of their relatives, associates and confidants. (Para 9) Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226

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

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - As per Rule 4(2), application/declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 for ownership certificate has to be made within a period of 180 days from the date of commencement of the Rules, 2003. Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated. (Para 5) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - Once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department. (Para 5.1) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 237
2. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234
3. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223
4. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220
5. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222
6. Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240
7. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230
8. In Re : Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 238
9. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232
10. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235
11. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241
12. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229
13. Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218
14. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227
15. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211
16. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216
17. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221
18. Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226
19. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239
20. Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213
21. Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225
22. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233
23. Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh P.S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219
24. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212
25. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231
26. State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214
27. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
28. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236
29. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242
30. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224
31. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215
32. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228