FACTS:

The appellants, Bijender @ Papu and another, along with three co-accused, were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 325 read with Section 149, Sections 148A, 308/149, and 323/149. The Trial Court imposed a sentence, and the High Court, on appeal, enhanced the punishment for the major offence.

ISSUES:

The appellants claimed parity with three other co-accused who were granted relief on grounds of old age.

The High Court had enhanced the sentence based on the suffering of the injured Budhram with a head injury caused by a lathi.

The appellants sought a reduction in the sentence.

HELD:

The Court observed that the concession granted to the three co-accused on grounds of extreme old age justified special treatment. The enhanced sentence was due to the suffering of Budhram, the injured, with a head injury caused by a lathi. However, as no specific role was assigned to any of the five convicts in causing the head injury, the Court decided to reduce the sentence for the appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC from five years to three years RI. The amount of fine and conviction and sentence for other offences remained intact.( Para 4)

With the modification in the sentence for the appellants, the appeal was disposed of.( Para 5)

Facts:

The case involves a writ petition (criminal) filed by Dr. Rini Johar and another against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The petitioners, a doctor and a practicing advocate, faced charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. They were arrested without following proper arrest procedures and later enlarged on bail. The petitioners alleged a demand for bribe by police officials and violations of Cr.P.C. provisions.

Issues:

Violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty.

Alleged offenses under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act.

Compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions, specifically Sections 41 and 41-A.

Applicability of public law remedy.

Held:

Initiation of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution should not impede the determination of the violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty. The State Government's inquiry does not bar adjudication, and the matter is within the scope of judicial review.( Para 11)

The inquiry report reveals the arrest was not conducted following the prescribed procedure under Section 41-A CR.P.C. Several violations in arrest and seizure were noted, justifying the petitioners' claim of mistreatment.( Para 22)

The arrestees, both a doctor and an advocate, were treated with serious disregard for their dignity. Liberty was curtailed unlawfully, causing emotional distress. The court emphasizes the sanctity of individual freedom and the need for proper arrest procedures.( Para 23)

Considering the totality of circumstances, a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is granted to each petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the suffering and humiliation endured. The State is entitled to proceed against the erring officials.( Para 27)

The Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-A(b) of the IT Act, but the latter was struck down. The dispute is deemed of a civil nature, and the attempt to criminalize it is criticized.( Para 28)

No ingredients of Section 420 IPC are established, and the court asserts that even if a wrong occurred, civil action should be pursued. The case doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, and the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.( Para 29)

Facts:

The three lady appellants, along with two men, were accused in a case involving various offenses. The trial court convicted all accused, and the High Court affirmed the decision. The appeal contended that contradictions in the victim's statements were not properly considered, and the defense of the appellants was overlooked.

Issues:

Contradictions in the victim's statements regarding the actions of the lady accused.

Applicability of Section 149 of the IPC to the appellants.

Adequacy of medical evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of an injured witness's testimony, especially when there are circumstances suggesting potential false implication. The Court found errors in the analysis of evidence by both lower courts, particularly in not considering the specific defense raised by the appellants. The medical evidence did not support the specific allegations against the appellants.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence against the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges due to the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasized the need for a more careful consideration of evidence in cases involving potential false implication.

Facts:

The appellants made a payment totaling Rs. 14,89,349.00, taking into account the duty payable under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the cum-duty benefit. An additional amount of Rs. 11,19,775.00 was payable if the benefit of a specific notification was applied.

Issues:

The extension of the benefit of cum-duty price, the invocation of a wrong section or rule in the show cause notice, and the eligibility of the appellant for treatment under Section 3(1) of the Act.

Held:

The benefit of cum-duty price was not extended, and the incorrect invocation of a section or rule in the show cause notice did not bar the imposition of a penalty under the correct rule or section. The expression "allowed to be sold in India" in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act applied exclusively to sales in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) of production by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) as per the provisions of the Exim Policy. Consequently, the assessee (appellant) was held liable to pay excise duty as per Section 3(1) of the Act.

Decision: The appeal stands allowed in favor of the appellant.

Facts:

Rekha alias Baby died of poisoning and was pregnant at the time of her death.

Appellant Satish Shetty was the husband of the deceased.

Appellant and his parents were initially acquitted but were later convicted by the High Court for offenses under Sections 498A, 306, and other IPC sections.

Charges included harassment for dowry and demanding money and gold.

Issues:

Validity of the judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court.

Conviction under Section 306 in the absence of a specific charge.

Sufficiency of evidence to justify the appellant's conviction.

Held:

The High Court found the trial court's approach erroneous in ignoring crucial facts, leading to a reversal of acquittal. The trial court's errors, including undue focus on financial details and ignoring available documents, rendered the judgment perverse. The Court rejected the contention that the acquittal was not perverse, affirming the High Court's findings.

The High Court, relying on K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, established that in cases involving cruelty under Section 498A and dowry death under Section 304B, a charge under Section 306 can be inferred from the evidence. The High Court's exercise of discretion under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was deemed justified in light of the established cruelty. The Supreme Court upheld this view, citing the discretionary nature of the presumption.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that there was insufficient evidence. It upheld the High Court's findings of harassment based on the mother's testimony, supported by a cousin's statement. The appellant's failure to explain the deceased's injuries and the subsequent demand for money for investment in a wine business were crucial factors. The Court found the evidence compelling and upheld the convictions under Sections 498-A and 306.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions under Sections 498-A and 306. The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of invoking presumptions under Section 113A and affirmed the High Court's findings on cruelty and abetment of suicide. The appellant was ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

Facts:

Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd. shared the live broadcast signal of a sporting event, including enhancing features and logos of event sponsors ("On-Screen Credits"), with Prasar Bharati.

The shared feed contained advertisements in the form of On-Screen Credits, which were logos of event sponsors.

Issues:

Whether the logos in the shared feed constituted advertisements and whether the sharing of live broadcasting signals must be without advertisements.

Held:

The logos (On-Screen Credits) were acknowledged as advertisements of event sponsors, intending to promote their companies for commercial purposes. The court emphasized that such commercials should be treated as advertisements.

Section 3 of the Sports Act imposes an obligation on content rights owners, content holders, and broadcasting service providers to share live broadcasting signals without advertisements. No distinction is made between different types of advertisements.

The purpose of the Sports Act is to provide free access to sporting events of national importance to the largest audience. Revenue generated from advertisements during the broadcast on Prasar Bharati is meant to be shared between the broadcaster and Prasar Bharati.

Sharing of signals must be without any advertisements. If advertisements are included, revenue sharing becomes mandatory. The court emphasized that the word 'its' in Section 3 should not be limited to advertisements of the broadcasting service provider.

Facts:

Writ petitions filed by private tour operators (PTOs) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Apprehension that applications for Hajj Yatra for 2016 may be rejected.

PTOs seek relief, including mandamus to accept applications and issue Registration Certificates.

Issues:

Whether the applications of PTOs for Hajj Yatra 2016 are likely to be rejected.

Relief sought under Article 32, including mandamus to accept applications.

Held:

The court dismisses the writ petitions.

No opinion expressed on the issues raised in previous orders.

The Additional Solicitor General states that no decision has been taken on the PTOs' applications.

Each PTO directed to make a fresh application by a specified date.

The concerned authority to examine, consider, and decide each application on its merit in accordance with the law.

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty granted to each petitioner to make a fresh application.

The concerned authority to decide each application with a reasoned order communicated to the applicant by a specified date.

Facts:

The employee (respondent No.1) worked as a Branch Manager at Ghat Branch of the Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Charge sheet dated 03.07.1992 was issued, alleging 19 charges, including unauthorized payments and issuance of overdrafts.

Employee responded, and an Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 21.09.1992.

Without further action, a fresh charge sheet with additional charges was issued on 16.01.1993.

Employee replied on 04.02.1993, but no inquiry proceedings were conducted.

Disciplinary Authority passed a resolution on 11.07.2000, stating charges were proved, and dismissal order was issued on 01.02.2002.

Issues:

Whether a proper disciplinary inquiry, as mandated by U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations Act, 1975, was conducted before dismissing the employee.

Whether the dismissal order was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Held:

The Division Bench quashed the dismissal order, finding that no proper inquiry was held. The Court held that the second charge sheet (issued on 18.01.1993) rendered the earlier proceedings obsolete, and no inquiry was conducted thereafter. The Court emphasized the importance of conducting a fair and bona fide inquiry, observing that the principles of natural justice were not followed.

The Court directed the Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. to hold a de-novo inquiry within six months if they desired to proceed with disciplinary action. The employee was deemed to be under suspension, and the High Court's directions on suspension allowance were upheld. The appeal is dismissed.

Facts:

Firoz Khan was accused of murdering an 11-year-old named Liley Khan.

The trial took place in Sessions Trial Case No. 48 of 2002 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer.

The Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on 13.08.2004, giving the benefit of doubt.

The State of Rajasthan, dissatisfied with the acquittal, filed an application for leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378(3) of the CrPC.

The High Court dismissed the application without assigning any reasons.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the application for leave to appeal without providing reasons was justified.

Whether there were discrepancies and errors in the judgment of the Sessions Judge.

Held:

The Supreme Court, while partially agreeing with the State's submission, criticized the High Court's order for a clear case of non-application of mind. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the application for leave to appeal afresh on merits within three months. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not applied its mind to the merits of the case and urged the High Court to decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order.