2016 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2016 Part 4

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ appeal — Tax matters: Jurisdiction of Division Bench in a writ appeal is primarily one of adjudication of questions of law. Therefore, findings of fact recorded concurrently by the authorities under the Act concerned (Income Tax Act in present case) and also in the first round of the writ proceedings by the Single Judge of the High Court are not to be lightly disturbed. [CIT v. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work (P) Ltd., (2016) 9 SCC 538]

Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 15(3): Freedom of thought, conscience, identity and choice, including of person she marries, available to women: Freedom, independence, constitutional identity, individual choice and thought of a woman, be a wife or sister or daughter or mother, cannot be allowed to be curtailed, and definitely not by application of physical force or threat or mental cruelty in the name of the man’s self-assumed honour. One may feel “My honour is my life” but that does not mean sustaining one’s honour at the cost of another. That apart, neither the family members nor the members of the collective has any right to assault the boy chosen by the girl. Her individual choice is her self-respect and creating dent in it is destroying her honour and to impose so-called brotherly or fatherly honour or class honour by eliminating her choice is a crime of extreme brutality, more so, when it is done under a guise. It is a vice, and a condemnable and deplorable perception of “honour”, comparable to medieval obsessive assertions. The caste system is a curse on the Nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. There is nothing honourable in honour killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment, as in the present case. Hence, life imprisonment by trial court converted to minimum non-remittable fixed term of 25 yrs by High Court, held, appropriate in facts of present case. [Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 9 SCC 541]

Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 32 — Communal violence — Violence between Hindus and tribal Christians — Compensation: Additional quantum of compensation that has to be paid for death and injury to persons and destruction/damage of property, directed. [Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa, (2016) 9 SCC 682]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 195(1)(b) and (4): Criminal complaint under Ss. 109/191/193/196/200/420/120-B/34 IPC for false statements made during income tax search proceedings under S. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 whereunder ITOs named are deemed to have powers of a court for the matters specified in said S. 131 cannot be instituted by Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) as DIT (Investigation) is not court/forum/authority to whom appeals would lie from ITOs named in S. 131 deemed to have powers of court. [Babita Lila v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 647]

Criminal Trial — Sentence — Death sentence — Imprisonment of minimum non-remittable specified term — Permissibility of, and when warranted: In this case, accused kidnapped minor girl, aged about 7 yrs, attempted to commit rape on her, thereafter murdered her and destroyed the evidence related to crime, hence, facts of this case do not make out “the rarest of rare” case so as to confirm death sentence. Death sentence confirmed by High Court, commuted to imprisonment for life with direction not to release accused from prison till he completes actual period of 25 yrs of imprisonment. [Tattu Lodhi v. State of M.P., (2016) 9 SCC 675]

Food Regulation Adulteration and Safety Laws — Sale of synthetic and adulterated milk: Considering gravity of matter, directions issued to curb sale of synthetic and adulterated milk. [Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India,  (2016) 9 SCC 699]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 173 — Compensation — Determination of: General principles under common law for estimating damages cannot be applicable for determination of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. “Pecuniary advantage” from whatever source must correlate to injury or death arising out of motor vehicle accident. View taken in Helen C. Rebello, (1999) 1 SCC 90 applies independently in determination of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, (2016) 9 SCC 627]

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Ss. 126(6), 84 and 94 — Survival of proceedings initiated under 1984 Act after enactment of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: In view of S. 126(6) of 2002 Act, legal proceedings initiated prior to 19-8-2002 (date of coming into force of 2002 Act), would continue unhindered by repeal of 1984 Act by 2002 Act. Since execution proceedings are also legal proceedings, and in instant case said execution proceedings were initiated prior to coming into force of 2002 Act, held, said proceedings are to be continued under 1984 Act only. [Ludovico Sagrado Goveia v. Cirila Rosa Maria Pinto, (2016) 9 SCC 615]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 19 — Prior sanction for prosecution of public servant — When required: On date of taking cognizance of alleged offence, office which accused held, relevant for determining necessity of sanction. If on that date he ceased to hold the office which he had held as public servant at time of commission of alleged offence, sanction not required to be obtained for his prosecution even if he thereafter continued to be a public servant in a different capacity/office. [L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 9 SCC 598]

One comment

  • Hereby Writing in reference to 2016 SCC 9, 598.
    As per rules, A public servant has to be transferred within 3 years, which usually never follow.
    It means, obviously public servant will get transfer as and when needed.
    IAS Khemka ji of Hariyana got transfer 42 times, so on an average he remains on post for 1-2 years..Sometimes, less than 6 months..
    My question is,
    (1) if a false complain lodged against a govt servant just before his transfer(I.e. >2.5 year and <3 years)
    (2) If Govt intentionally transfer any public servant who is working truly as per rules but never follows minister's false instructions..
    Then what about 197 CrPC and 19 PC Act's protection provided to public servant..

    As far as cases of 156(3) is concerned, there is no question at all Bcs FIR registered by megistrate after application of mind but what about other cases where 156(3) doesn't apply.

    In judgement all case referred were of 156(3) nature, many times Honourable Judges mentioned the word "for our purpose".
    As "for their purpose" the case was of 156(3), petitioners were found accused in lower/high/supreme court but asking for sanction as they had been transfered..
    So absolute interpretation of above said judgement must be restricted to the cases of 156(3) only..
    But I know some cases, where after SCC 9, 598, The Investigating agencies have produced challan without sanction on basis of transfer of govt employee (which is a normal process), although PC Act's ingredients did not meet prima facie..The whole case is of harassment.
    Now after SCC 9, 598 Investigating agencies deciding, who has to catch and who has to leave, depending upon their relationships.
    I want to know, is this real interpretation of the above said judgement or the interpretation need to be discussed more precisely.
    Hope to get early response, so that the law provide protection and an human being get justice..

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.