Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 50 and 18 — Search and seizure: In this case, contraband was recovered from bag carried by accused, hence, S. 50 stood complied with. From oral and documentary evidence, it is clear, that courts below were right in their findings. As prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of accused under S. 18, confirmed. [Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563]
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 21 — Right to property as a human right — Implications of — Property as seed-bed of all other freedoms: It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists. [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569]
Ss. 9 and 3 — Mandatory nature of — Non-compliance with S. 9 r/w R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995: In this case, Respondents were charged under Ss. 302/34 and 404/34 IPC apart from S. 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act. Investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector and not by DSP as required by R. 7 of the 1995 Rules. It was held by the Supreme Court that the proceedings under SC/ST Act, were rightly quashed by courts below, but charge-sheet deserved to proceed in an appropriate competent court of jurisdiction for offences punishable under IPC, as investigation had been made by a competent police officer in accordance with provisions of CrPC, so far as the offences punishable under IPC were concerned. Impugned order was accordingly restricted to offence under S. 3 of the 1989 Act and not in respect of offences punishable under IPC. [State of M.P. v. Babbu Rathore, (2020) 2 SCC 577]
Service Law — Appointment — Non-appointment/Denial of appointment/Right to appointment: Right to appointment does not accrue merely upon participation in selection process and even upon being placed in merit list. [Mohd. Rashid v. Local Bodies, (2020) 2 SCC 582]
Service Law — Misconduct — Absence from duty/Unauthorised absence/Absenteeism — Proportionality/Quantum of punishment: In this case, Respondent failed to report for duty for about seven years (1991 to 1998) after availing leave for 9 days and defying direction of Commandant to present himself before CDMO for medical examination. The High Court by the impugned judgment substituted punishment of discharge with that of compulsory retirement by relying on medical certificate. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court was not proper and restored the punishment of discharge. [State of Odisha v. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, (2020) 2 SCC 588]
Constitution of India — Sch. X Para 6 — Disqualification of Member of Legislative Assembly — Speaker’s order disqualifying Member — Scope of Speaker’s jurisdiction: While disqualifying Member, Speaker has no jurisdiction to specify period of disqualification such as disqualification would continue till end of term of Legislative Assembly and during that period Member would not be entitled to contest elections, even if they might have defected to another party (for which they might have suffered the disqualification). [Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595]
Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Classification — Religious institutions — Rent control legislations: Separate classification of properties belonging to religious institutions for purpose of rent legislations [like Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 herein], held, permissible. It is not violative of Art. 14. Court can interfere only when the policy of Act is irrational. [Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 659]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 6 and proviso thereto — Applicability of — Grounds of exemption from limitation law: Stating of grounds of exemption in pleadings is necessary. Proviso to Or. 7 R. 6 permit exemption from law of limitation on any ground not set out in plaint, so long as such ground was not inconsistent with grounds set out in plaint. [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 85 — Applicability of exception — Defence of intoxication when thing which intoxicated accused was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will: Defence of intoxication/drunkenness can be availed of only when intoxication produces such a condition as accused loses the requisite intention for the offence and onus of proof about reason of intoxication, due to which accused had become incapable of having particular knowledge in forming particular intention, is on the accused. Evidence of drunkenness which renders accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into account with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had the intention. Merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts. [Suraj Jagannath Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 2 SCC 693]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 34 — Common intention — Vicarious liability — Inference of: In order to invoke principle of joint liability in commission of criminal act as laid down in S. 34, prosecution should show that criminal act in question was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of all. Common intention may be through a pre-arranged plan, or it may be generated just prior to the incident. Common intention denotes action in concert, and a prior meeting of minds. The acts may be different, and may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. Question as to whether there is any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. Totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether accused persons had the common intention to commit the offence. [Virender v. State of Haryana, (2020) 2 SCC 700]
