FACTS:

An Insecticide Inspector seized a sample of Dimethoiate 30% EC from a shop in Rajasthan.

The sample was declared misbranded after analysis by the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory.

The accused, M/s Northern Minerals Ltd., submitted a reply indicating their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the Analyst's report.

Complaint filed, and cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

Accused appealed, challenging the order of cognizance.

ISSUES:

Whether the accused's right to rebut the Analyst's report was valid.

The impact of the expiration of the sample's shelf life on the accused's defense.

HELD:

The court interpreted Sections 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act, emphasizing the accused's right to challenge the Analyst's report. It concluded that the accused, even if not the person from whom the sample was taken, has the right under Section 24(4) to adduce evidence in controversion. The expiration of the sample's shelf life was considered crucial, and the court held that the accused's right to disprove their guilt had been frustrated. The proceedings were quashed. The instant appeal is allowed.

REFERRED CASES:

Northern Mineral Limited Vs. Union of India, (2010) 7 SCC 726.

Facts:

Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2016 filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus for conducting NEET for MBBS admissions nationwide for the academic session 2016-17.

Court orders on April 27, 2016, included removal of office objections, deletion of Respondent No. 4, and assurance from all three respondents for conducting NEET.

Issues:

Whether NEET should be conducted for MBBS admissions in the academic session 2016-17.

Effect of earlier court orders against holding NEET, considering the recalled judgment in Christian Medical College, Vellore vs. Union of India.

Held:

The court, based on respondents' submissions, recorded that NEET shall be held for the academic session 2016-17.

Clarified that, notwithstanding any earlier court orders, the current order shall operate.

Disagreed with arguments against NEET based on the recalled judgment, stating that Notifications from December 21, 2010, are in operation.

Emphasized that the order would not impact pending petitions before the court.

Facts:

The case involves the provisional arrest of Marie-Emmanuelle Verhoeven based on a request from the Embassy of Chile through a Note Verbale dated September 22, 2015. The petitioner is accused of conspiracy in the assassination of a Chilean Senator.

Issues:

The applicability of the Extradition Act to a foreign state, the binding nature of the Extradition Treaty between India and Chile, the validity of the provisional arrest under Section 34-B of the Act, and the principle of reciprocity in extradition proceedings.

Held:

Establishes that the Government of India considered itself bound by the Extradition Treaty with Chile since 1897-1898. The Extradition Treaty remains in force and binding on both India and Chile.( Paragraph 95)

Confirm that a Red Notice is not a warrant of arrest but is issued to seek the provisional arrest of a wanted person. The absence of a Red Notice does not preclude the Government of India from arresting a fugitive criminal.( Paragraphs 121 and 122)

Dismisses the argument that the petitioner's arrest under Section 34-B could only be made on a request from the foreign State itself, emphasizing that a request from the Embassy of a foreign State is equivalent.( Paragraph 12)

Delve into the principle of reciprocity, stating that it can be invoked even without an extradition treaty. The court affirms that the petitioner could have been validly detained and placed under provisional arrest on a reciprocal basis, irrespective of an Extradition Treaty between India and Chile.( Paragraphs 124, 127, 128, and 129)

Reinforces that the decision on whether the Extradition Act is applicable to a foreign state is a political decision, not subject to judicial review.( Paragraph 130)

Directs the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to decide on the extradition of the petitioner based on the merits of the case and the evidence before him.( Paragraph 137)

Decision: The court dismisses the writ petition and appeal, upholding the validity of the provisional arrest and extradition proceedings against the petitioner.

Facts:

Search and seizure took place on June 22, 1998, in the business premises of the appellant companies.

Notices under Section 158BC(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued in 1999.

The assessing officer issued a direction under Section 142(2A) for a special audit.

Appellants challenged the special audit order through a writ petition, and an interim stay was granted on August 24, 2000.

The High Court quashed the special audit direction but held that the period between August 24, 2000, and December 15, 2006, should be excluded in counting the limitation for block assessment.

Issues:

Calculation of the limitation period for block assessment - from the first search on June 22, 1998, or the last search on August 5, 1998?

Whether the interim stay on special audit (August 24, 2000, to December 15, 2006) should be excluded from the limitation period for block assessment?

The validity of subsequent searches and the requirement for fresh authorization.

Held:

Limitation Period for Block Assessment The court held that the limitation period for block assessment is to be counted from the last date of the search when the search operation was finally concluded, i.e., August 5, 1998. This interpretation is based on Explanation 2 to Section 158BE(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Stay of Assessment Proceedings The court held that the period between August 24, 2000, and December 15, 2006, during which the interim stay on special audit was in operation, should be excluded from the limitation period for block assessment. The special audit was considered an integral part of the assessment proceedings.

Validity of Subsequent Searches The court did not entertain the argument challenging the validity of subsequent searches, as the appellants did not raise this issue in their writ petition.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the High Court. The court determined that the limitation period for block assessment is to be counted from the last date of the search, and the period during the interim stay on special audit should be excluded from the calculation of the limitation period. The court did not entertain the challenge regarding the validity of subsequent searches due to the absence of such a challenge in the writ petition.

Facts:

The appellant, Ashok Kumar Giri, sought reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The High Court of Patna, in its impugned order, had rejected the appellant's claim based on the number of vacancies at the time of notification. The issue revolved around the correct calculation of reservation for differently-abled persons.

Issues:

Whether the reservation for differently-abled persons should be computed based on the total vacancies of the cadre or only on the vacancies available in the identified post at the time of notification.

Held:

The Supreme Court, in reference to the case Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind, clarified that the 3% reservation for differently-abled persons must be calculated based on the cadre strength, not just the vacancies available at the time of notification. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. The appeal stands disposed of.

Facts:

Balram Yadav filed a Civil Suit in the Family Court seeking a declaration that Fulmaniya Yadav is not his legally married wife.

The High Court held that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction for a negative declaration.

Issues:

Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over a case seeking a declaration on the validity of marriage and matrimonial status.

The interpretation of Sections 7, 8, and 20 of the Family Courts Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits or proceedings for a declaration regarding the validity of marriage or matrimonial status.Para 7-8

The Court emphasized that it doesn't matter whether the relief sought is affirmative or negative; what's crucial is the declaration concerning matrimonial status.Para 7-8

Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, with its overriding effect on other laws, supports the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts in such matters.Para 6

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The matter was remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal, preferably within six months.Para 8

Facts:

Jivibai, the deceased, was married to the appellant, Harijan Bhala Teja. She was found dead, allegedly murdered by the appellant. The prosecution contended that Teja buried her hastily without informing her family. No post-mortem examination was conducted initially.

Issues:

Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified.

If the view taken by the trial court was against the weight of evidence or perverse.

Whether the evidence proved the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC.

Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof.

Held:

The High Court, upon re-examining the evidence, found the trial court's order perverse. It concluded that the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC was proved, emphasizing the appellant's hasty burial of the body, lack of information to the police, and medical evidence supporting strangulation. The defense arguments were rejected, including the claim that the fracture of the hyoid bone could be explained by the burial. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and life imprisonment.

Facts:

The appellant, Ashok Kumar Giri, sought reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The High Court of Patna, in its impugned order, had rejected the appellant's claim based on the number of vacancies at the time of notification. The issue revolved around the correct calculation of reservation for differently-abled persons.

Issues:

Whether the reservation for differently-abled persons should be computed based on the total vacancies of the cadre or only on the vacancies available in the identified post at the time of notification.

Held:

The Supreme Court, in reference to the case Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind, clarified that the 3% reservation for differently-abled persons must be calculated based on the cadre strength, not just the vacancies available at the time of notification. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. The appeal stands disposed of.

Facts:

Balram Yadav filed a Civil Suit in the Family Court seeking a declaration that Fulmaniya Yadav is not his legally married wife.

The High Court held that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction for a negative declaration.

Issues:

Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over a case seeking a declaration on the validity of marriage and matrimonial status.

The interpretation of Sections 7, 8, and 20 of the Family Courts Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits or proceedings for a declaration regarding the validity of marriage or matrimonial status.Para 7-8

The Court emphasized that it doesn't matter whether the relief sought is affirmative or negative; what's crucial is the declaration concerning matrimonial status.Para 7-8

Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, with its overriding effect on other laws, supports the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts in such matters.Para 6

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The matter was remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal, preferably within six months.Para 8