“Age of Consent” under the POCSO Act: In this article, an attempt is being made to minutely scrutinise and analyse judgments under the POCSO Act to examine the impact of raising the “age of consent” under the POCSO Act. [“Age of Consent” under the POCSO Act by Maharukh Adenwalla and Prakriti Shah, (2022) 8 SCC (J-80)]
Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges: In this article, the author emphasize that the entire selection process for the appointment of the Supreme Court and the High Court Judges needs to be revisited. A system having checks and balances, transparency coupled with confidentiality, objective criteria needs to be in place. [Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges: Need for a Fresh Look by Vijay Hansaria, (2022) 8 SCC (J-52)]
Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Writ petition against order of Revisional Court rejecting plaint under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC: A Revisional Court while allowing the application filed under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC would in substance reject the plaint but since in such a case, the said decree is not passed by the court of original jurisdiction, namely, the trial court, the remedy by way of writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution would be available to the aggrieved party. However, if the plaint were to be rejected by the trial court i.e. court of original jurisdiction, it would result in a right of appeal under S. 96 CPC. [Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 633]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail: In this case of kidnapping for ransom of child, murder and recovery of his dead body next day, considering nature and gravity of offence, role which was attributed to second respondent and crucial witnesses which remain to be examined, High Court, held, not justified in granting bail to second respondent. Hence, grant of bail quashed. [Mamta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 598]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 and 437: Grant or denial of bail, principles summarized. [Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 432(7), 433 and 433-A and S. 406 — Application for grant of premature release — Appropriate Government — Determination of: For grant of premature release, place/State where crime was committed, and not place/State where trial was conducted, held, are determinative of the matter. [Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 8 SCC 552]
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 32(1) — Dying declaration — Evidentiary value — When sufficient to ground conviction: Acceptance of dying declaration without corroboration, when permissible, principles summarized. [Uttam v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 576]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 14(1)(c) r/w S. 238 — Moratorium under IBC — Effect of, on incomplete auction-sale of the security interest under the SARFAESI Act: Once CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property. Further, the legislative intent is clear that after CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest are prohibited. Further, IBC being a complete code in itself and in view of the provisions of S. 238 of the IBC, the provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. [Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 516]
Interest for pre-reference period: This article analyses Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of pre-reference period. Interest for pre-reference period under section 31(7)(a) of arbitration and conciliation act — power or right? By Ketan D. Parikh, (2022) 8 SCC (J-73)]
Justice Delivery — Some Challenges and Solutions: The purpose of this article is to identify and analyse some of the problems faced in justice delivery and attempt some effective solutions to such problems. [Justice Delivery — Some Challenges and Solutions by R.V. Raveendran, (2022) 8 SCC (J-1)]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Ss. 9(2), (3) and 94 — Claim of juvenility before court — Burden of proof: When a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules, 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000, or, the documents mentioned in S. 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court, once the document(s) in question have been proved in accordance with S. 35 and other provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. Further held, the said presumption raised on the basis of the abovesaid documents is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. [Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602]
Kerala Abkari Act, 1902 (1 of 1077 ME) — S. 55(a) — Culpability of appellant (A-1) — Determination: In this case, as per prosecution, appellant (A-1) under the leadership of A-3 to A-5 found dealing with spirit and for that purpose, A-3 took a house on rent and A-3 to A-5 bought certain quantity and stored the same in the said house, and entrusted the same to the appellant and A-2 to deal with it on commission basis. When the appellant and A-2 came to know about detection of said spirit, they attempted to commit suicide, resulting in charge under S. 55(a) of the Act and S. 309 IPC. Conviction under S. 55(a) of the Act confirmed by High Court, but it set aside conviction under S. 309 IPC. Considering materials on record including that of 11 prosecution witnesses and statement of the appellant recorded under S. 313 CrPC, conviction of appellant under S. 55(a) of the Act, held justified. [Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 499]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 100 — Right of private defence of body — Circumstances stretching such right to the extent of voluntarily causing death: To claim such a right, the accused must be able to demonstrate that the circumstances were such that there existed a reasonable ground to apprehend that he would suffer grievous hurt that would even cause death. Thus, necessity of averting an impending danger, held, is the core criteria for exercising such a right. [Mahadev v. Border Security Force, (2022) 8 SCC 502]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder trial: In this case, alleged money transaction between appellant-accused herein and deceased leading to dispute between them, resulting in appellant allegedly murdering deceased using firearm. As the case was based on circumstantial evidence and links in the chain of circumstances were not found established, hence, acquittal of appellant by trial court, restored. [Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (1 of 2003) — Ss. 32(3) and 20: Entitlement to mesne profits to the extent of three times of the standard rent in terms of S. 20 of the 2001 Act, in case the premises are let out for commercial purposes is not applicable to pending proceedings. Suit or proceedings pending on date of coming into force of the 2001 Act, would continue under the 1950 Act. The 2001 Act would have no application in such a case, as pending proceedings under the old Act are expressly saved under S. 32(3) of the 2001 Act. [Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra Mehta, (2022) 8 SCC 527]
SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities — Reservation/Concession/Exemption/Relaxation and Affirmative Action — Caste/Tribe Certificate — Invalidation of, by Caste Scrutiny Committee — Effect of: As restoration of land to legal heirs of deceased was on basis of caste certificate in terms of the 1974 Act, thus cancelled. [Terraform Magnum Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 556]
