Facts:The appellant was intercepted by a raiding party while walking on the road. A search revealed the possession of 1.5 kgs of charas and Rs. 2,400/- cash. The appellant challenged his conviction, alleging non-compliance with sections 42 and 50 of the Act.

Issues:

Whether the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were applicable to the circumstances of the case.

Whether there was compliance with the requirements of section 50(1) regarding the search of the appellant.

Held:

The court held that section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory when the offence under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance, or an enclosed place. In this case, the interception occurred in a public place, rendering section 42 inapplicable.

Section 43 applies to situations where the seizure and arrest take place in a public place, including places accessible to the public. The court found that the location of the interception fell within the definition of a "public place" under section 43.

Compliance with section 50(1) regarding search of a person by the empowered officer is mandatory. Since the search conducted by PW-2 involved the appellant's person, section 50 applied. Both PW-2 and PW-4 informed the appellant of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

The option given to the appellant to search PW-2 before conducting his own search did not vitiate the process. The search was conducted in the presence of PW-4, a gazetted officer, in compliance with section 50(1).

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant. It held that there was strict compliance with the legal requirements regarding search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Facts:

The appellant was injured in a tractor accident due to rash and negligent driving.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Evidence was presented regarding the circumstances of the accident and the extent of the appellant's injuries.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's travel in the tractor breached policy terms.

Determination of just and proper compensation for the appellant's injuries.

Held:

The High Court found that the appellant traveled in the tractor in breach of policy conditions.

The insurance company was directed to pay compensation to the appellant but with the liberty to recover it from the tractor owner.

The compensation amount determined by the tribunal and upheld by the High Court was deemed just and proper.

The tribunal's assessment of permanent disability at 60% was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation was rejected.

The appeals were partly allowed, directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with the liberty to recover it from the tractor owner.

Facts:

The appellant, R.S. Sehrawat, a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), was implicated in a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction and subsequent demolition.

The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against him based on allegations of filing a false affidavit.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's finding of guilt against the appellant for filing a false affidavit was justified.

Whether the appellant was given fair opportunity and whether charges were properly framed against him.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the appellant's defense, which was supported by contemporaneous official records.

The burden of proof in contempt proceedings is high and must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court did not meet this standard.

The Court criticized the High Court for not framing formal charges against the appellant and proceeding unjustly.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and orders, and dropped the show cause notices issued to the appellant.

Facts:

The petitioner sought a writ to ban the novel 'Meesha', alleging that it insulted and derogated temple-going women and had the potential to disturb public order and decency.

Issues:

Whether the novel 'Meesha' should be banned on the grounds alleged by the petitioner.

The extent to which freedom of speech and expression should be curtailed.

Held:

The court emphasized the importance of freedom of expression in literature and the dangers of stifling creativity. Literature represents the freedom to express oneself, and creativity should not be choked or smothered.

Intellectual freedom is crucial for the flourishing of literary freedom, and any obstruction to free speech and expression leads to intellectual repression.

While the freedom enjoyed by an author is not absolute, the court's duty is to ensure that any restriction imposed falls within the reasonable parameters of Article 19(2).

Readers should approach creative works with maturity and tolerance, appreciating them for their manifestation of imagination.

Courts should refrain from interfering with creative works unless they violate the law. Imposing restrictions based on subjective perceptions would amount to censorship.

Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the freedom of speech and expression and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding creativity in literature.

Facts:

The appellant, a teacher at Rani Chennamma School, Hospet, assaulted a second standard student (PW-2) with a wooden stick for not wearing uniform shoes, resulting in injury to the student's left eye.

The Trial Court initially acquitted the appellant, citing contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses and alleging that the injured child witness (PW-2) was tutored before his testimony.

The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC, sentencing him to two years of imprisonment.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC was appropriate or if it should be modified.

Held:

The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented in the case.

Regarding the tutoring allegation of the child witness (PW-2), the Court found that being a child witness, PW-2 needed guidance to understand court proceedings and testify truthfully.

Contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) were deemed immaterial, especially as their evidence was supported by PW-5 and medical evidence.

The Court modified the conviction from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), as there was no evidence to show that the stick used by the appellant was a dangerous weapon.

The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year, with an additional fine of Rs.50,000. In default of payment, the appellant would undergo three months of imprisonment.

The fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured student (PW-2).

The appellant was given four weeks to surrender, failing which he would be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal is partly allowed.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that police officials caused injuries to a victim in order to extract a confession regarding a crime, leading to the victim's death in police custody. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder but convicted them under various sections of the IPC. The High Court upheld the convictions under section 330 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the actions of the accused constituted culpable homicide and if the charges and sentences were appropriate.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the police officers were the cause of the victim's death.

Whether the actions of the accused amount to culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code.

Held:

The courts below concurred that the injuries did not directly cause the victim's death. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation from vomiting, which occurred hours after the injuries were inflicted.

Causation is a crucial element in determining culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC. While factual causation may exist, legal causation requires a sufficient connection between the accused's actions and the death.

The principle of 'take their victim as they find them' was considered, indicating that if a person hastens the death of another already suffering from a disorder, they are deemed to have caused the death.

As the injuries inflicted were not directly responsible for the victim's death, sections 302 and 304 IPC were not applicable.

The police officers' actions were criticized as lawless, and their sentences were increased to the maximum imposable period under section 330 IPC, considering the gravity of their conduct.

Decision: The Court upheld the lower courts' decisions regarding the charges and convictions of the accused. However, it modified the sentences of the accused police officers to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under section 330 IPC.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the Criminal Appeal Nos. 182-187 of 2009 in the afore-stated terms. Further Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2008, Criminal Appeal Nos. 387-388 of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2008 stand dismissed.

Facts:

Haribhau, the appellant, along with Babarao, confronted a teacher, Bala Saheb Ingole, at a school, accusing him of tardiness.

When Bala Saheb did not comply with their demands, Haribhau physically assaulted him, leading to the filing of an FIR.

Haribhau and Babarao were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Babarao was acquitted on appeal, but Haribhau's appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the sentence awarded to Haribhau should be altered considering factors such as his age, lack of prior criminal record, and time already served.

Held:

In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month's jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of the period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 15,000/-.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal in part, reducing Haribhau's jail sentence to the time already served and increasing the total fine amount. It directed Haribhau to deposit the fine within one month, failing which the remaining jail sentence would be reinstated.

Facts:

The petitioners, including an actor, producer, and director of the movie "Oru Adaar Love," sought to quash an FIR filed against them regarding the picturization of a song from the movie.

The FIR was filed by an intervenor alleging that the song offended the sentiments of a particular community, invoking Section 295A of the IPC.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the petitioners in picturizing the song amounted to an insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a community, as per Section 295A of the IPC.

Held:

The court analyzed Section 295A of the IPC and referred to the case law to interpret its applicability. The court concluded that the provision did not apply to the petitioners' actions, as there was no deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.

The court emphasized the importance of artistic expression and originality, stating that mere picturization of the song, even with controversial elements, did not violate Section 295A.

Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the FIR, and directed that no further action be taken against the petitioners regarding the picturization of the song.

Facts:

The deceased, Dilip Bhowmik, was driving his own vehicle when he met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries. His family members filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which was contested by the insurance company.

Issues:

Whether the claim petition is maintainable when the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and responsible for the accident due to his own negligent driving.

Held:

The Court held that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable since the deceased, being the owner-cum-driver, was responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving.

Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation beyond the limit specified in the insurance policy for personal accident coverage.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the specified amount with interest to the respondents.