2013 SCCL.COM 310(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 709 of 2013)
Natasha Singh Appellant   versus CBI (State) Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/8/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 311 — application filed under — for permission to examine three witnesses by the appellant accused — dismissal of — in challenge — the insurance claim filed by the appellant was inflated and therefore, the collusion of a Public Servant in this respect attracted the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — the learned Trial Court prejudged the evidence of the witness sought to be examined by the appellant, and thereby cause grave and material prejudice to the appellant as regards her defence, which tantamounts to a flagrant violation of the principles of law governing the production of such evidence in keeping with the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. Even, no prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine said three witnesses — impugned judgments of the lower Courts set aside and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant allowed — appeal allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 306(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 470 of 2012)
Manoj Giri Appellant   versus State of Chhatisgarh Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/8/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 396 and 376 (2)(g) — dacoity with murder and gang-rape — conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offences under — in challenge — the deceased was killed in the assault by the five accused and the murder was committed during the conjoint commission of dacoity — ample evidence of rape in view of the forensic report regarding the clothes of the prosecutrix and those of the appellant. Thus, the entire evidence collected along with the proper and clear identification of the accused at identification parade and in the court by the prosecutrix leaves no manner of doubt that conviction of the appellant is well founded — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 305(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2009)
Palwinder Singh Appellant   versus State of Punjab Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/8/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 392, 302 r/w section 34 — conviction and sentence of the appellant of the offences under — in challenge — the evidence led by the prosecution, disclosed that the deceased died of ante-mortem injuries and that it was a homicidal death, which was fully supported by the version of P.W.1 — the recoveries made at the instance of the appellants also fully supported the case of the prosecution — the version of PW-3 read along with the evidence of P.W.4 discloses that the presence of both of them was beyond any pale of controversy — the presence of P.W.3 along with P.W.4 at the time when the occurrence took place and the identity of the appellant by P.W.3 and describing his involvement in the commission of the offence as narrated by him, was rightly believed by the trial Court and such a reliance placed upon the eye-witness account of P.W.3 for convicting the appellant with the aid of other witnesses is perfectly justified — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 312(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 7045 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 2005)
Bank of Maharashtra Appellant   versus Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/7/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur .
Subject Index: Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 — section 19(19) — Companies Act, 1956 — section 529 — whether the claims of the workmen who claimed to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered by the official liquidator or whether their claims have to be adjudicated upon by the Debts Recovery — to consider — the Supreme Court held that if the debtor company is not in liquidation nor any provisional liquidator has been appointed and merely winding up proceedings are pending, there is no question of distribution of sale proceeds among secured creditors under 1993 Act, however, where a company is in liquidation, a statutory charge is created in favour of workmen in respect of their dues over the security of every secured creditor and this charge is pari passu with that of the secured creditor. Even, pending final disbursement of the proceeds realized from the sale of security in execution of the recovery certificate issued by the debt recovery tribunal, if debtor company becomes company in winding up, Section 529A read with Section 529(1)(c) proviso come into operation and statutory charge is created in favour of workmen in respect of their dues over such proceeds — Section 19(19) of the 1993 Act does not clothe DRT with jurisdiction to determine the workmen’s claim against the debtor company. If the debtor company is not in liquidation or if in respect of such company no order of appointment of provisional liquidator has been made and merely winding up proceedings are pending, the question of distribution of sale proceeds among secured creditors in the manner prescribed in Section19(19) of the 1993 Act does not arise — once the company is in winding up the only competent authority to determine the workmen’s dues is the liquidator who obviously has to act under the supervision of the company court and by no other authority — reference answered.

2013 SCCL.COM 311(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2036 of 2009)
Khairuddin & others Appellants   versus State of West Bengal Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/7/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 r/w sections 149, 148 and 323/149 — punishment of murder, grievous hurt, rioting with deadly weapons — conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences under — in challenge — the commission of an overt act may not always be necessary to prove that a member of an unlawful assembly shared the common object of the assembly, but then, the minimum that the prosecution must prove is that the persons concerned were members of the unlawful assembly — the presence and participation of the five appellants in the incident was established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt as these appellants were not only named in the FIR but were in specific terms named even at the trial by the witnesses examined by the prosecution, some of whom were themselves injured in the incident, thereby, proving their presence on the spot beyond any doubt — conviction of Appellants No. 1, 3, 4, 9 and 16 maintained while rest of the appellants are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges framed against them — appeal disposed.

2013 SCCL.COM 308(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008)
Krishnan & others Appellants   versus State of Haryana & others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/7/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 — section 32A — No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act — validity of the provision of — in question — whether Section 32A NDPS Act is violative of Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India — whether Section 32A NDPS Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch, as the same abrogates the rights of an accused/convict under the Act to be granted remission/commutation, etc — to consider — matter referred for consideration by a larger bench, either by a three Judges Bench first or by a five Judges Bench directly.

2013 SCCL.COM 303(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1366 of 2007 with Crl. Appeal No. 508 of 2007)
Shivasharanappa and others Appellants   versus State of Karnataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/7/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 143, 147, 448, 302, 201 r/w section 149 — order of the High Court reversing judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicting all the accused for the offences punishable under — in challenge — the learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in treating the conduct of the witnesses unnatural and, therefore, felt that it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony. It was a plausible view and there were no compelling circumstances requiring a reversal of the judgment of acquittal — the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges — appeals allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 302(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2012)
Sundargarh Zilla Adivasi Advocates Association and others Petitioners   versus State Government of Odisha and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/7/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur .
Subject Index: Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Part IX-A, Article 243-ZC — whether the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 are applicable to Sundargarh district in Odisha — to consider — the fact not disputed that Sundargarh district is a declared ‘Scheduled Area’ in terms of Clause 6(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution — there was a vacuum in the administration and control of the Scheduled Area of Sundargarh from 1st June 1994 since neither Part IX-A of the Constitution nor the Orissa Municipal Act were applicable to the Scheduled Areas in Odisha — Clause 1 of Article 243-ZC provides that the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution do not apply to  Scheduled Areas such as Sundargarh and there is no corresponding statute relating to the extension of Part IX-A of the Constitution relating to municipalities to Scheduled Areas. Therefore, in the absence of the application of Part IX-A of the Constitution to the Scheduled Area of Sundargarh, what does apply is the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 — writ petition dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 301(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4345-4429 of 2013)
Jayamma and others Appellants   versus The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan Dist., Hassan and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/6/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — direction to compel the land acquisition collector to complete the acquisition proceedings — writ petition filed for — whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can compel the State to complete the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act — whether writ can be issued compelling the Land Acquisition Collector/Officer to implement the instruction issued to him by the Government otherwise than under the procedure under the Act — to consider — the Supreme Court held that the High Court exercises judicial review of administrative action or inaction but it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to acquire any property, otherwise than as per the Land Acquisition Act or to compel the Government to pass an Award pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act even when it is followed by the declaration. It is for the Government to consider at the permissible stage as to whether a particular property is to be acquired or whether an Award is to be passed pursuant to proceedings already initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act — appeals dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 298(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4150-4163 of 2013)
Ni Pra Channabasava Deshikendra S.M.K.M. Appellant versus C.P. Kaveeramma & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/6/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifualla .
Subject Index: Occupancy rights — grant of — appeals filed for — jurisdiction of the Tehsildar’ for working out or implementing the grant of occupancy rights granted in favour of the appellant — the continued possession of the respondents after the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the appellant in the order dated 11.2.1993, should be construed as unauthorized and there was every right in the appellant to invoke the protection of the Land Reforms Act for the purpose of working out its remedy by taking recourse to law for implementing the order dated 11.2.1993 — the Tehsildar, had every jurisdiction to deal with application of the appellant for working out its remedy based on the grant of occupancy rights in its favour in the proceeding dated 11.2.1993, which has become final and conclusive. More so, the order of remand to the Tehsildar, shall not entitle the respondents to raise any issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar, in particular, based on the mortgages of the year 1955 and 1967 — appeals allowed — directions issued.

2013 SCCL.COM 296(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1919 of 2008)
B. Rugmini Amma & another Appellant(s)   versus B.S. Nirmala Kumari & others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/6/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Subject Index: Promotion — of Graduate Typists/Confidential Assistants to the post of Section Officer in the Administrative Secretariat — writ petition filed by the respondents challenging their belated promotion to the post of Section Officer and the accelerated promotions given to the appellants notwithstanding the fact that the respondent-writ petitioners were available for consideration for promotion, having passed the suitability test and also having undergone the requisite period of training of one year — the High Court allowed the writ petition, with consequential directions to the State to give due benefits to the petitioners respondents and scale down the undue benefits that had already been conferred on the Graduates — the appeal — the G.O. dated 17.6.1988 merely exempted Graduate Typists/ Confidential Assistants from the requirement of passing the qualifying examination. The said G.O. did not give any priority/preference in the matter of promotion to the Graduates over the qualified Undergraduates/Non-graduates. The aforesaid G.O. in clause (d) clearly stated that Graduate Typists/Confidential Assistants will be considered for promotion only if eligible Non-graduates were not available — the original G.O. dated 17.6.1988 merely exempts Graduate Typists/ Confidential Assistants from passing the suitability test and no further. The effect of the clarificatory G.O. cannot, by any means, supersede or override the terms of the main order — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 293(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4340 of 2013)
Smt. V. Sudha Appellant   versus P. Ganapathi Bhat & another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/6/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale .
Subject Index: Motor accidental claim — appeal filed for enhancement of compensation — the medical record showed that the appellant had to be operated for ‘close reduction and annulated screw fixation of fractured neck of femur'. She suffered for inability to stand with full weight in left lower limb, and needed crutches to walk — the High Court modified the award rendered by the MACT of Rs.1,94,350/- and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- to the appellant — the evidence of the doctor stated that the future treatment would cost more than Rs.90,000/- and this corroborating evidence has not been contravented — the claim petition filed by the appellant fully allowed and decreed at Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum — appeal allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 304(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 684 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 685-687 of 2013)
Madhao & another Appellant(s)   versus State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/3/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 156 (3) — whether the learned Magistrate is justified in directing the Police to investigate and submit a detailed report within one month under Section 156(3) of the Code — to consider — complaint registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the acts of fraud, criminal breach of trust and impersonation against the accused persons — the Magistrate need not order any investigation if he pre-supposes to take cognizance of the offence and once he takes cognizance of the offence, he has to follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of the Code — the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, thus, the procedure adopted and the power exercised by the Magistrate is acceptable and in accordance with the scheme of the Code — appeals dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 295(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9967 of 2013)
Vidya Dhar & others Petitioners   versus Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/3/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Broadcasting/telecasting — episode of "CRIME PATROL DASTAK" presenting a dramatized version of “JBT Teachers Scam” — suit filed for withholding the screening of the Serial in question pending disposal of the Petitioners' prayer for stay of conviction and appeal — the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the Respondent from broadcasting/telecasting the said program till the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was decided — the petition — the Supreme Court held that once the trial has been completed and the Petitioners have been convicted and, thereafter, arrested, there is no further possibility of any bias against them at the time of hearing of the appeal — no interference with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge — Special Leave Petition dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 294(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 5513 of 2012)
Vimal Kanwar & others Appellants   versus Kishore Dan & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/3/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .
Subject Index: Motor accidental claim — negligent and rash driving by non-applicant no. 1 caused the death of deceased — the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal granting compensation in favour of the appellants at Rs.14,93,700/- jointly — the appeal — whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction — whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction — whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act — held no — none of the respondents stated that the income-tax payable by the deceased was not deducted at source by the employer State Government, thus, the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income-tax, for calculating the compensation — the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,73,000/- with interest @ 12% to the claimants — appeal allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 292(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 194 of 2008)
Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah Appellant(s)   versus State of Assam Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/3/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 376 and 302 — offence of rape and murder — conviction and sentence of the accused for commission of the offences under — in challenge — the appellant-accused and his companion committed rape on the girl and thereafter, assaulted her by throttling her neck due to which she died on the spot — no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-1, who is an independent eye-witness to the incident, and the corroborative evidence of PW-2, father of the deceased — the order of the High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant and altering the sentence of death to imprisonment for life upheld — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 290(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4282 of 2013)
Registrar General, Calcutta High Court Appellant   versus Shrinivas Prasad Shah and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/3/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 — the order passed by the High Court directing the Commission to appoint the respondent in West Bengal Judicial Service pursuant to the examination conducted in the year 2007 treating him as a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community — in challenge — whether the Public Service Commission of West Bengal was justified in considering the application of respondent No.1 as a general candidate for recruitment to the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2007 rather than a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community — to consider — no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not entertaining the respondent’s application as a ST candidate since no certificate was produced from the competent authority, as provided under the 1994 Act. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite certificate, the Commission was justified in treating him as a general category candidate and hence he could not get appointment as judicial officer in the examination held in the year 2007 — the Supreme Court held it a case of total non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the notification (information to the candidates) which specifically stated that a candidate claiming to be SC/ST/BC must have a certificate in support of his/her claim from a competent authority specified in the 1994 Act — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 307(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 417 of 2012)
Manohar Lal Sharma Petitioner(s)   versus Union of India and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/1/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy — in Multi-Brand Retail Trading — writ petition filed for quashing Press Note Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of (2012 Series) dated 20th September, 2012 being unconstitutional and without any authority of law — the competence of the Central Government to formulate a policy relating to investment by a non-resident entity/person resident outside India, in the capital of an Indian company is beyond doubt. RBI Regulates foreign investment in India in accordance with Government of India's policy — the impugned policy is only an enabling policy and the State Governments/Union Territories are free to take their own decisions in regard to implementation of the policy in keeping with local conditions. Hence, the impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in Multi-Brand Retail Trading does not appear to suffer from any of the vices — writ petition dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 299(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 911 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2007)
Habib Appellant   versus State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/1/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 r/w section 34 — punishment of murder with common intention — conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences under — in challenge — PW 1 and PW 2 categorically stated that the first shot was fired by Manuwa but missed his aim and it was Habib who fired the fateful shot at the neck of the deceased and thereafter three culprits ran away from the spot. PW-3 fully corroborated the testimony of other witnesses regarding the part played by the three accused persons in the commission of crime — the motive for the murder was the strained relationship between the accused persons and PW 1 and the deceased — the Supreme Court held that if the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive — the High Court rightly reversed the acquittal order passed by the trial court — appeals dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 300(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4127 of 2013 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4128-4129 of 2013)
Hari Dass Sharma Appellant   versus Vikas Sood & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/29/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra .
Subject Index: H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 — section 14 — eviction of tenants — applications filed for — whether the High Court could have directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution — to consider — the Rent Controller while determining the bonafides of the appellant-landlord recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, and has accordingly passed the order of eviction and this order of eviction has not been disturbed either by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court as the Revision Authority. Once the High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14(4) of the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of the building to the landlord — the direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could only be executed on the revised plan of the building being approved was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act and the proviso thereto — appeals allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 286(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4112-4113 of 2013)
N. Narayanan Appellant   versus Adjudicating Officer, SEBI Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/26/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: SEBI Act, 1992 — section 12A — SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 — Regulation 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(e), 4(2) (f), 4(2)(k), 4(2)(r) — violation of — the order of the Adjudication officer restraining the appellant for a period of two years from buying, selling or dealing in securities and imposing a monetary penalty of 50 lacs under Section 15HA of SEBI Act — in challenge — the facts clearly indicated that the company made false corporate announcement stating that it had entered into agreements with 802 theatres and that false corporate announcement gave false figures relating to advance, security deposit and income pertaining to the theatres which were not in-existence. The deposits shown were turned out to be not genuine but mere book entries to hide receivables in the balance sheet — the Directors of the company have “created artificiality” by projecting inflated figures of the company’s revenue, profits, security deposits and receivables and that the manipulation in the financial results of the company resulted in price rise of the scrip of the company and the promoters of the company then pledged their shares to raise substantial funds from financial institutions, therefore, the conduct of the appellant and others was, fraudulent and the practices adopted, relating to securities, were unfair, which attracted the penalty provisions contained in Section 15 HA read with 15J of the SEBI Act — appeals dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 284(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 628-629 of 2013)
Bharat Bhushan Appellant   versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/26/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 — section 20 — IPC, 1860 — section 376 — offence of rape — the order of the High Court reversing the acquittal order passed by the trial Court and convicting the appellant of the offence under — in challenge — the appellant was not a juvenile under the 1986 Act as he had crossed the age of 16 years, but, the case was, however, pending before the High Court in appeal on the date the 2000 Act came into force and had, therefore, to be dealt with under Section 20 of the Act which required the High Court to record a finding about the guilt of the accused but stop short of passing an order of sentence against him — the High Court convicting the appellant, it did not commit any mistake for the power to do so was clearly available to the High Court under the provisions of Section 20 but what was not permissible was passing of a sentence for which purpose the High Court was required to forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Board constituted under the Act. The order of sentence is, therefore set aside — conviction of the appellant upheld, however, directed his release from custody — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 283(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 5274 of 2008)
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & others Appellants   versus Madu Giri (Dead) through Lrs. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/26/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 — whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme — held no — the statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same manner which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory conditions and requirements. Any action or conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such action illegal and invalid — appeals allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 282(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 805 of 2009)
Litta Singh & another Appellant(s)   versus State of Rajasthan Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/26/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 — punishment of murder and common intention — conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences under — in challenge — the intention to cause death with the knowledge that the death will probably be caused, is very important consideration for coming to the conclusion that death is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or the knowledge that death will probably be caused — the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants — no evidence that the appellants made special preparation for assaulting the deceased with the intent to kill him — the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was sufficient to cause death, but the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the deceased, hence the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC — conviction of the appellants converted from section 302 to 304 Part II and sentence to 10 years imprisonment — order modified.

2013 SCCL.COM 281(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1132 of 2009)
Thammu Panduranga Rao & another Appellant(s)   versus State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/26/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304(2) — culpable homicide not amounting to murder — conviction and sentence of the appellants of the offence under — It is the cardinal principle of law that everyone has a right to defend his own person and property but the right of private defence cannot be exercised for causing more harm than necessary or for taking revenge. Such right of private defence must be used as a shield to avert an attack and it should not be vindictive and cannot be used to retaliate — the evidence of the witnesses examined and injuries sustained by the deceased and PW- 2 clearly established that the cumulative effect of the injuries led to the death of the deceased and appellant No.1 being the person, who participated in the commission of the offence, was also having common intention to attack the deceased — appeal dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 285(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2013)
State of J & K Appellant   versus Lakhwinder Kumar & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/25/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Rules, 1969 — section 80, Rule 41 — incident of killing a teenager by the constable of BSF on the instigation of his Commandant — the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court allowing the application filed by the Commandant and handing over the accused together with the charge-sheet and other materials collected by the investigating agency for trying the accused by the Security Force Court — in challenge — the Criminal Court and the Security Force Court each have jurisdiction for trial of the offence which the accused persons are alleged to have committed. Wide discretion has been given to the specified officer under Section 80 of the Act to make a choice between a Criminal Court and a Security Force Court but Rule 41 made for the purposes of carrying into effect the provision of the Act had laid down guidelines for exercise of that discretion — the Commanding Officer, exercised his power under Section 80 of the Act and except that, there is not even a whisper as to why said discretion has been exercised for trial of the accused persons by a Security Force Court , thus, the Commanding Officer exercised his power ignorant of the restriction placed on him under the Rules — impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court set aside and liberty given to the Director General of the Force, to re-visit the entire issue in accordance with law to conclude if the trial deserves to be conducted by the Security Force Court — appeals allowed.

2013 SCCL.COM 264(Case No: Revision Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7944 of 2010)
Union of India Petitioner(s)   versus Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/23/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 — Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 — interpretation of the various provisions of — review petition filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Mines, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Others (Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010 and Civil Appeal Nos. 7945-54 and 7955-61 of 2010) since the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, could not put forth its view on the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act in Sandur (supra) and did not get an opportunity of being heard — the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face of the record rather the dispute is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and applicability of Section 11(2) and 11(4) of the MMDR Act. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction — the Supreme Court, regarding the issue of Mineral Policies, already held in Sandur (supra) that in view of the specific parliamentary declaration as discussed and explained by this Court in various decisions, there is no question of the State having any power to frame a policy de hors the MMDR Act and the MC Rules — review petition dismissed.

2013 SCCL.COM 287(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1108 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1109-1111 of 2006)
Kanhaiya Lal & others Appellants   versus State of Rajasthan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2013.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 148, 427, 342, 460 and 302/149 — conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences under — in challenge — massacre of five persons — the High Court acquitted respondent Mohan Lal and others of the charges framed against him under Sections 302 and 460 IPC and while declining death reference converted the same to life sentence as far as the other accused persons of the same category are concerned — the appeals — delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the case of the prosecution if adequately explained — the whole crime was committed in a planned design — the witnesses have lost their father, husband and a relative, thus, there is no earthly reason to categorise them as interested witnesses who would nurture an animus to see that the accused persons are convicted, though they are not involved in the crime — the proponement that no independent witnesses had been examined was bereft of any substratum because the witnesses could not have dared to depose against the Sarpanch who, on mere suspicion, had set himself on such a massacre and self-preservation being the basic instinct in such a situation had ruled supreme — the involvement of some appellants was doubtful and hence, acquitted, however, the other accused-appellants were involved in the commission of crime and, therefore, the conviction under Section 302 upheld — appeals dismissed.