Facts:

Appellant, Raju Devade, filed an appeal against the High Court's judgment affirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of a girl named Baby.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on the victim and set her on fire, resulting in her death.

The defense contended that the death was accidental, caused by a kerosene lamp falling on the victim while she was sleeping.

Issues:

The primary issue was the reliability of the dying declarations made by the victim, which were inconsistent.

The court needed to determine whether the third dying declaration, exonerating the accused, should be given weight despite inconsistencies.

Held:

The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the third dying declaration, stating that it was not accepted for valid reasons provided by the trial court.

Emphasized the need to consider each dying declaration independently and found the first two dying declarations to be reliable and consistent.

The defense's theory of accidental death was rejected based on evidence, including the victim's statements and medical reports.

The court affirmed the conviction, stating that the prosecution had proven its case with cogent evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, Sekhar Suman Verma, was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for the possession of heroin.

The case involved a raid conducted by officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (N.C.B.) in Calcutta, during which heroin was found in the possession of the appellant.

The appellant was given the option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and consented to be searched by the accompanying Gazetted Officer.

Issues:

The main legal argument raised by the appellant was related to the alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search.

Held:

The High Court, upholding the trial court's decision, rejected the argument of non-compliance with Section 42, citing a Supreme Court decision (State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and Ors.) that stated compliance with Section 42 was not necessary when a search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer himself.

The court found that the requirements of Section 50 were complied with, as the appellant was given a written offer to be searched, and he consented to the search.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's reasoning on the compliance with Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the bail previously granted by the Supreme Court was canceled. The appellant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh and others were convicted under TADA in the State of Gujarat, receiving life imprisonment, confirmed by the Supreme Court. Upon the convict's request, he was transferred to a Punjab jail. Subsequently, the convict applied for sentence remission, facing rejection from the State of Gujarat. A writ petition challenging the refusal was filed in the High Court.

Issues:

Consideration of the remission application by the State of Gujarat.

Jurisdiction of the appropriate government under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

High Court's directive to release the convict on parole.

Held:

The High Court found no deficiency in the State of Gujarat's order, noting the convict's involvement in disruptive activities and a network posing a threat to national security. The High Court's direction to reconsider lacked merit (Para 32).

The appropriate government for Sections 432 and 433 was determined to be the Central Government, given the imposition of the sentence under TADA. The convict was granted liberty to submit a premature release application to the Central Government (Paras 29, 31, and 32).

The High Court's abrupt direction to release the convict on parole for three months was deemed inappropriate. Judicial discipline requires courts to exercise such jurisdiction sparingly, and the power should align with legal principles. Judges must act within constitutional bounds (Para 33, 34).

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The appeal stemmed from a criminal case in which Hussain was charged with offenses under Sections 380, 457, and 460 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Trial Court initially convicted Hussain, but the High Court reversed the judgment, acquitting him based on certain reasons.

Issues:

The key issue revolved around the High Court's reversal of the Trial Court's judgment and the subsequent acquittal of Hussain.

The High Court raised concerns about the attribution of the fatal blow, doubts regarding the recovery of stolen articles, the absence of important witnesses during the recovery, insufficient evidence to prove ownership of stolen property, and the time already spent in jail by the accused.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, found no merit in the State's appeal.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the High Court's view was based on a permissible appreciation of evidence within its jurisdiction.

The Court noted that it would not re-appreciate the evidence unless the High Court's decision lacked reasoning or was wholly perverse, which was not the case here.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's acquittal of Hussain.

Facts:

The accused, Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa, was apprehended based on secret information, leading to a search and seizure operation. The conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was challenged.

Issues:

Breach of Section 42(2) concerning the communication of information to the senior officer.

Non-compliance with Section 42(1) proviso, which requires recording grounds of belief for a search without a warrant.

The contention that the jeep used by the accused did not have a permit as a public transport vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, impacting the applicability of Section 43.

Held:

The court found a breach of Section 42(2) due to a disparity between the recorded secret information and the information sent to the Circle Officer. The communication sent did not align with the information recorded.

Emphasizing Section 42(1), the court noted the absence of recorded grounds of belief by the Station House Officer for conducting a search without a warrant. This non-compliance with the proviso to Section 42(1) was deemed a violation of the act.

The court discussed the definition of "public conveyance" under Section 43 and concluded that the jeep, lacking a permit for public transport, did not fall under this category. Consequently, Section 43 was not applicable, emphasizing the need for compliance with Section 42(1) proviso.

The court clarified that this was not a case of sudden search at a public place. Compliance with Section 42 was required when conducting a search after recording information under Section 42(1). The non-compliance seriously prejudiced the accused.

Rejecting arguments based on substantial compliance, the court highlighted the total non-compliance with Section 42(1) proviso. Section 43 was not attracted, and the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction was justified.

Facts:

The petitioners were convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for over 10 years with a fine.

Petitioners sought remission under Chapter XIX of the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, which was denied due to the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act.

Issues:

Whether Section 32A of the NDPS Act restricts the powers of constitutional authorities under Articles 72 and 161?

Whether the denial of remission under the Manual, based on Section 32A, is arbitrary and against the principles laid down in relevant judgments?

Held:

The Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, affirming that it doesn't impede the powers of the executive under Articles 72 and 161.

The Court declared unconstitutional that part of Section 32A which deprived the courts of the power to suspend sentences under the NDPS Act.

It clarified that the powers under Articles 72 and 161 are distinct from statutory remission powers, as established in previous judgments.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners did not demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights, and Article 32 couldn't be invoked solely for seeking remission.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for a declaration of ownership over the disputed land.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and lack of evidence.

The appellant filed a first appeal before the High Court challenging the Trial Court's decision.

The appellant sought permission to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal at the threshold.

Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 for additional evidence should have been allowed.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in limine, emphasizing the valuable legal right to file a first appeal. The Court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27, permitting the appellant to file additional evidence. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial on merits. The Court directed an expeditious trial and granted the respondents an opportunity to file additional evidence in rebuttal. The appointment of a Court Commissioner for spot inspection of the suit land was suggested.

Facts:

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (Respondent).

Complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act regarding a loss covered by an Open Marine Policy (Cargo).

Appellant argued that the complaint was not maintainable due to the assignment of the policy in favor of the consignee.

Issues:

Whether the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the appellant was maintainable?

Did the respondent have the locus to file the complaint on the strength of the insurance policy after assignment to the consignee?

Held:

Examined Sections 17 and 52 of the Marine Insurance Act. Held that Section 17 allows the insured to retain rights even after assignment unless there is an express agreement. The insured is legally entitled to file a complaint.( Para 19-26)

Authorization letter dated 04.07.1997 from the consignee in respondent's favor further justified the locus to file a complaint for compensation.( Para 28)

The complaint was held maintainable, saved by Section 17 of the Act and the authorization letter dated 04.07.1997.( Para 32)

Section 79 of the Act on sabrogation did not apply; Sections 17 and 52 governed the case.( Para 34)

The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.( Para 35)

Referred Cases in the Judgment:

Decided on : 29-06-2016

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12

Marina Insurance Act, 1963 - Section 17, Section 52

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 23—Marine Insurance Act, 1963—Sections 17 and 52—Insurance—Open Marine Policy (Cargo)—Short delivery of cartons—Compensation of ` 19,90,000/- alongwith 12% interest awarded by State Commission—Respondent was legally entitled and had locus to file complaint against appellant on strength of contract of insurance policy for enforcement of all contractual rights available to them under insurance policy for claiming compensation—Complaint so filed by respondent could not be dismissed as not maintainable on ground of locus—It was rightly held as maintainable—Appeals dismissed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

B.K. Satija, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Iti Sharma, Puneet Sharma, Rajesh Bhatia, Ashwani Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent

Facts:

Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on March 20, 1978.

Land acquired for widening a road.

Possession of the land taken on February 20, 1982.

Respondent land-owners requested withdrawal of acquisition after possession.

Government ordered withdrawal under G.O.M. No.156 dated 25th February, 1982.

Subsequently, withdrawal was canceled under G.O.M. No.714 dated 11th November, 1983.

Multiple legal proceedings, including Writ Petitions and Appeals, ensued.

Issues:

Legality of withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings after possession under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Held:

The Court emphasized that Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act does not permit withdrawal of acquisition proceedings after possession.

The withdrawal of acquisition proceedings, in this case, was found to be improper and in violation of the Act.

Criticized the sympathetic approach of the Court towards land-owners, leading to prolonged litigation.

Quashed and set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 24th January, 2012.

Appeals allowed with no order as to costs.