Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Generally — Nature, Scope and Applicability: Meaning and Constituents of principles of natural justice in general, and the principle of audi alteram partem in particular, explained. Meaning and civil consequences of blacklisting or debarment of a person/entity also explained. Principles elucidated relating to principles of natural justice vis-à-vis blacklisting or debarment of a person/entity. [SBI v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1]
Advocates — Right to Practise — Verification of genuineness of degrees and enrolment certificates of the Advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils — Necessity: Directions issued for constitution of High-Powered Committee for verification of genuineness of degrees and enrolment certificates of the Advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils. [Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, (2023) 6 SCC 144]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167(2): Remand to police custody after elapse of the first 15 days from the date of arrest, whether/When permissible, determined. [CBI v. Vikas Mishra, (2023) 6 SCC 49]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 197 and 482: Quashment of complaint on ground of absence of sanction under S. 197, whether warranted, and application of nexus test, explained. Acts allegedly done by accused whether committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, determined. [S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar, (2023) 6 SCC 156]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 r/w S. 149 — Child eyewitness — Determination of credibility of — Age factor and duty of court: Evidence of child witness cannot be rejected merely because of her age being 12 yrs, but being a child witness, her evidence needs a very careful evaluation with greater circumspection considering the fact that a child witness can always be easily tutored. [Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, (2023) 6 SCC 151]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302: Principles clarified relating to bail by suspending sentence in offence of murder, when permissible. [Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 364 and 364-A — Relative scope of: Ingredients of offences under Ss. 364 and 364-A and distinction between them, clarified. [Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana, (2023) 6 SCC 76]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 417 and 418 — Quashing of FIR — Dispute being essentially a civil dispute in nature: A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Further, merely the allegation of failure to keep up promise, held, will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Further held, the criminal court should exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters appear essentially of civil nature and, thus, any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. [Kunti v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 109]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — S. 14 & proviso thereto, S. 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Ss. 7 and 19(2)(a)(ii): Law clarified relating to vendor of food article, particularly in the case of a packaged item, when cannot be held liable for adulteration of the same. [Sri Mahavir Agency v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 103]
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 44, 43, 45, 3 and 4 — Special Court which has jurisdiction — Determination of: Irrespective of where the FIR relating to the Scheduled Offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the Scheduled Offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where any one of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under S. 3 took place. [KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 6 SCC 92]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings: Non-payment of compensation, reiterated, is not a sole ground, where possession of land has been taken. [LAO v. Hari Chand, (2023) 6 SCC 99]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings: If either there has been payment of compensation to landowner, or, possession of acquired land has been taken, then there shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings. [DDA v. Anita Singh, (2023) 6 SCC 113]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — S. 43-D(5) & proviso thereto r/w Ss. 18, 19, 20 and 39 — Bail: “Reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true” for denial of bail as provided under S. 43-D(5) proviso, determined. [Yedala Subba Rao v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 65]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Ss. 39 & 40 and S. 43-D(5) & proviso thereto: Essential ingredients of offences of supporting and/or raising funds for terrorist organisation under Ss. 39 & 40 and matters to be considered before cancellation of bail in respect of such offence(s), illustrated. [Kekhriesatuo Tep v. NIA, (2023) 6 SCC 58]
