SOME RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Lawyer

Forum Moderator

 1. On 13th October, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Siddhapal Kamala Yadav vs State of

Maharashtra [Crl. A. No.1602 of 2008] held that "under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors."


"The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section", the Bench said.
 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Forum Moderator

 2. On 16th October, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha vs Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar [C.A. No. 6125 of 2008] while examining the order recorded by the Rent Controller granting permission to the landlord under Clause 13(3) (iv) and (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, held that "the notice issued by the Advocate on behalf of the appellant-landlord prior to filing of the application for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) was not a mandatory requirement postulated under the provisions of the Rent Control Order."



The Bench observed that "as there was no statutory requirement that the landlord should issue a notice of eviction to the tenant before initiating proceedings under clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order, the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in drawing an inference against the appellant-landlord for not stating the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises in the notice dated 12.07.1982 issued to the respondent-tenant before the institution of eviction proceedings which commenced on 30.09.1982."
 
Reply   
 


Lawyer

Forum Moderator

3. On 7th November, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. M/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [C.A. No.6565 of 2008] held that "when the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations. If the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them."


The Bench observed that "a stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electricity supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. Having regard to the very large number of consumers of electricity and the frequent moving or translocating of industrial, commercial and residential establishments, provisions similar to clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor."


The Bench did not "find anything unreasonable in a provision enabling the distributor/supplier, to disconnect electricity supply if dues are not paid, or where the electricity supply has already been disconnected for non-payment, insist upon clearance of arrears before a fresh electricity connection is given to the premises."


It is the "duty of the purchasers/occupants of premises to satisfy themselves that there are no electricity dues before purchasing/occupying a premises. They can also incorporate in the deed of sale or lease, appropriate clauses making the vendor/lessor responsible for clearing the electricity dues up to the date of sale/lease and for indemnity in the event they are made liable", said the Bench. 
 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Forum Moderator

 4. On 12th November, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Deepak Bajaj vs State of Maharashtra& Anr [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.77 of 2008] held that the "reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution." "If a person is sent to jail then even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably tarnished", the Bench observed.

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Forum Moderator

 5. On 12th December, 2008, a two Judges Bench in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr. [Crl. A. No.2019 of 2008] held that since escalating pollutionlevel of environment "affects on the life and health of human beings as well as animals, thecourts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a causal or routine manner." The Bench observed that the Courts "cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water."

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Forum Moderator

6. On 12th December, 2008, a two Judges Bench in M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. [Crl. A. No. 2021 of 2008] while examining the territorial jurisdiction of a court to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,observed that "a banking institution holding several cheques signed by the same borrower can not only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four different places. This only causes grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of an accused vis-à-vis the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Forum Moderator

 7. On 16th December, 2008 a two Judges Bench in M/s. Kumar Exports vs M/s. Sharma Carpets [Criminal Appeal No.2045 of 2008] held that "the accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt,apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant."

 
Reply   
 

I would like to file a PIL on running of URC( unit run canteens selling CSD goods at subsidised rates )by the CDA staff/est ( 38 in numbers at various stations in India . CSD goods are sold by armed forces URCs to the eligible categories. Govt employees of the Controllers of Defence Accts are NOT eligible. It is claimed that those civilian employees paid out of defence estimates were allowed to draw goods as goodwill gesture ( for their devoted work ) from the URCs run by military units. No auth /permission exists to run CDA URCs. My queries to spell out exact auth has not been provided. In my opinion this is the extreme mode of appeasement by the military auth /Min OF Defence to allow the auditors of the defence forces to run their own canteens. This is exactly the worst ever undetected civil collar crimes . It is the root cause of many evils and ordinarily the root cuases for the intended lapses on the part of the CDA sTAFF to be lenient in their duties to scrutinise purchase documents . It has BOFORS . HDW etc etc to name a famous few which has helped scamters looting the exchequers . bEING a citizen of this great country i intend to file a PIL against such abuse of ministerial / secretarial powers . Pl help me to file the PIL at HYDERABAD.
 
Reply   
 
Manager

sir, can you help in giving any judgement citation of any court on Nullity of marriage under section 12 HMA please

 
Reply   
 
manager

Prakash Ji,

Can pl give Citations of SC regarding Probate of a Will......

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x