Facts:

On December 7, 2009, an FIR was lodged alleging that Dhoom Singh, in association with the appellant Ritesh Sinha, was collecting money on the promise of providing jobs in the Police.

The Investigating Authority sought to verify recorded conversations by obtaining the voice sample of Ritesh Sinha.

The CJM issued summons to Ritesh Sinha to appear before the Investigating Officer and provide his voice sample.

Issues:

Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution, protecting a person accused from self-incrimination, extends to protecting them from giving a voice sample during the investigation.

Whether, in the absence of a specific provision in the CrPC, a Magistrate can authorize the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the accused.

Held:

The first question was answered in the negative, following the precedent set in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad.

The second question resulted in a split verdict among the judges. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai held that the Magistrate had implied power under Section 53 CrPC to order a voice sample. Justice Aftab Alam disagreed, emphasizing the need for legislative action.

The Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, concluded that a Magistrate should be conceded the power to order a person to give a voice sample for crime investigation until explicit provisions are enacted.

FACTS:

The case involved Col. Rajnish Bhandari, VSM, as the appellant, challenging charges under Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950.

ISSUES:

Constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

Confirmation proceedings under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950.

HELD:

The court declares Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code unconstitutional, following its judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39.

The sentence "In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor" in Section 497 is deemed unconstitutional, rendering the entire section unconstitutional.

Nothing survives against the appellant on charges related to Section 497 of the Penal Code.

The appellant has been acquitted under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, subject to confirmation.

The Armed Forces Tribunal judgment dated 08.01.2019 is set aside.

The appeal is allowed.

Confirmation proceedings under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, are to continue and reach their logical conclusion.

REFERRED CASES:

Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39

Facts:

Shashi Bhusan Prasad, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), faced both criminal and departmental proceedings.

Criminal case: Charges under the Arms Act related to providing a firearm used in a murder.

Departmental proceedings: Gross misconduct in discharge of duties, involving handing over an unlicensed firearm.

Appellant acquitted in the criminal case but dismissed from service based on the departmental inquiry.

Appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of Orissa.

Issues:

Whether the acquittal in the criminal case absolves the appellant from disciplinary liability.

Whether the charges in the criminal and departmental cases are based on the same set of facts and evidence.

Held:

Affirms the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings.Emphasizes that the charges in the two proceedings were on different sets of facts and evidence.Acquittal in the criminal case does not affect disciplinary liability.( Paragraph 17)

Reiterates that criminal and departmental proceedings serve different objectives.Notes the difference in burden of proof and standard of evidence in the two proceedings.Acquittal by a criminal court does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from disciplinary jurisdiction.( Paragraph 19)

States that no error in the procedure or violation of natural justice was raised.Courts cannot interfere in disciplinary proceedings unless there is a violation of the scheme of rules.( Paragraph 23)

Facts:

The dispute involves the office of mutawalli at the Andrott Jumah mosque.

The respondents, claiming descent from Saint Ubaidulla, assert a customary right to the mutawalli office.

Appellants argue that the mosque's construction was by the island's inhabitants, and selection should be by local residents.

Issues:

Whether the Pattakal family has a customary right to the office of mutawalli.

Whether the local residents have the right to select the mutawalli.

Held:

Ordinarily, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction does not permit interference with findings of fact. However, correction is allowed if the lower court's findings are grossly erroneous. The High Court rightly noted historical facts, and the Tribunal failed to apply the appropriate standard of proof. No exceeding of revisional jurisdiction.

Partition deeds do not deal with the right of the mosque's management. The respondents claim a customary, not proprietary, right to the mutawalli office.

Historical materials, including the Gazette, support Ubaidulla as the first mutawalli. The Gazette is an official record, and its contents are relevant. The appellants failed to present contrary historical opinions.

The Muslim law does not inherently recognize succession to the mutawalli office, but exceptions, including custom, exist. Respondents demonstrated a customary right with clear evidence. The burden of proof is higher for a public waqf.

The committee's existence and the compromise decree are discussed. The compromise decree, being without court leave and violating Wakf Act provisions, is declared void. No breach in respondents' customary right.

The mutawalli has no property right, and the respondents' customary right is subject to the Waqf Act. The respondents established a reasonable customary right to the mutawalli office.

Facts:

Minor girl went missing, leading to the registration of a case.

Threatening calls demanding ransom were made to the girl's father.

Dead body found later; appellants arrested and charged.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including calls, recovery of items, and witness account.

Issues:

Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.

Clarity on ownership of mobile numbers in threatening calls.

Connection between recovered items and accused.

Timeline of the dead body's discovery.

Held:

Reiterates the principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence.Emphasizes the need for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence.Quotes legal standards from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra.( Paragraph14)

Raises doubts regarding the ownership of mobile numbers in threatening calls. Highlights the prosecution's failure to establish a clear link between the calls and the accused.(Paragraph 16(a))

Points out the lack of forensic analysis or handwriting expert testimony to connect the drawing book to the threatening letter.( Paragraph16(b))

Questions the alignment of the timeline of the dead body's discovery with the alleged actions of the accused.( Paragraph 17)

Concludes that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and conclusive case against the appellants.Grants the appellants the benefit of the doubt.Acquits the appellants of all charges.( Paragraph18)

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by Manoharan against the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore. The appellant was charged under various sections of the IPC, including 302, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(g), and 201, in connection with the gang rape of a ten-year-old girl leading to the murder of two children. The trial court and High Court had found the crime to be of the "rarest of rare" category.

Issues:

The severity of the crime, the assessment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness of the death sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Held:

The court, consisting of Justices R.F Nariman and Sanjiv Khanna, noted that the trial court and High Court correctly applied a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The crime, involving the rape of a minor girl and the murder of two children, was deemed cold-blooded with no remorse shown by the appellant.

The court emphasized the heinous nature of the crime and the unlikelihood that the appellant, if set free, would not be capable of committing such a crime again. The appellant's confessional statement, even though later retracted, did not demonstrate genuine remorse.

As a result, the court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeals.

Facts:

The appellant, Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya, engaged in the business of manufacturing cement pipes through M/s General Cement Pipe Company Limited. The dispute involved the rejection of the appellant's application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land Act, the declaration of certain land as excess vacant land, and the subsequent possession by the government.

Issues:

The legality of possession, the repeal of the Urban Land Act by the Repealing Act of 1999, and the implications of the saving provisions under the Repealing Act.

The appellant contested the possession and argued that the proceedings lapsed upon the repeal of the Act.

Held:

In analyzing the facts and issues, the Court held that the possession of the land was taken over before the repeal of the Urban Land Act on 31 March 1999. The Court considered the saving provisions under Section 3(1) of the Repealing Act and emphasized that the appellant did not challenge the order of vesting or the consequences under the Act of 1976.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court. It concluded that, given the events and pleadings, there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision.

Facts:

The appellant, Vijendra, was accused of adulteration in milk.

The milk sample taken from the appellant was found deficient by 12% in milk fat and 27% in non-fatty solids.

The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the Food Inspector (PW-1), who claimed that the sample was taken in the presence of an independent witness (PW-3).

PW-3, the independent witness, did not support the prosecution's case.

Issues:

Compliance with Section 10(7) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Adequacy of evidence, especially the lack of support from the independent witness.

Proper sampling procedures and the relevance of homogeneity in milk samples.

Held:

The Court noted the importance of the accused's right to receive and respond to the Analyst's report under Section 13(2) and emphasized strict compliance with legal provisions. It highlighted that the report's dispatch alone was not sufficient, and there was no proof of its delivery to the appellant within the prescribed 10-day period. The lack of compliance with procedural requirements was a critical factor in the decision.( Paragraph 16)

The Court raised concerns about the sampling procedures, especially regarding the homogeneity of the milk sample. It referred to the necessity of stirring and churning to achieve homogeneity, as established in previous legal precedents. The uncorroborated testimony of PW-1, the Food Inspector, was considered insufficient to sustain the conviction.( Paragraph 17)

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the previous judgments, acquitted the appellant, and held that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision was based on the lack of compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of supporting evidence, particularly the non-cooperation of the independent witness.( Paragraph 18)

Facts:

The plaintiff, a private limited company, purchased agricultural properties in Village Yakootpur, Pargana, and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar under sale deeds dated 17.10.1998.

The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.06.2006, alleging illegal sale of the disputed property by the first defendant to the second defendant.

The second defendant challenged the suit's maintainability, invoking Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Issues:

Whether the suit for cancellation of the sale deed is maintainable in the Civil Court, considering Section 331 of the Act.

Held:

The Court emphasized that Section 331 of the Act does not deprive a party of the right to approach a competent Civil Court for cancellation of a document, especially when the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under a cloud.

It clarified that the Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief for cancellation of a deed based on fraud and misrepresentation.

Citing precedent cases, including Smt. Bismillah vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors (1990) 1 SCC 207, the Court held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court should be strictly construed.

The plaintiff's suit for cancellation of the sale deed was deemed maintainable in the Civil Court, and the second defendant's challenge was rejected.

The Court dismissed the appeal, and no order as to costs was issued.