Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Proof — Burden and Onus of proof — Recourse to S. 106 of the Evidence Act — When permissible: Undoubtedly, burden is on prosecution to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. If prosecution fails to discharge its initial burden beyond reasonable doubt, accused has to be acquitted. Further, it is settled law that prosecution cannot take recourse of S. 106 of the Evidence Act without establishing the foundational facts. [Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) 8 SCC 597]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 41, 41-A and 438 — Powers of arrest of police — Authorisation of detention by Magistrate: In cases/offences punishable with imprisonment for term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine, and cases under S. 498-A IPC or S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, directions issued for strict compliance with directions issued in Arnesh Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449. Additional directions issued to ensure strict compliance with directions issued in Arnesh Kumar case.[Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632]
Government, Contracts and Tenders — Enlistment/Blacklisting/ Downgrading/Penalty — Penalty for non-supply of goods — Show-cause notice granting opportunity of being heard specifically on the point of penalty: It would not be enough to put contractor concerned only on notice of debarment, without specifically putting it on notice on issue of penalty. [Isolators & Isolators v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 607]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 323, 504 and 506 — Quashment of charge-sheet under: In this case there were trivial nature of allegations in the incident of altercation between employees of a company. Relevance of pendency of proceedings without any progress since long time, determined. [Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 481]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 333, 353 and 451: Sentence warranted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, determined. [Razia Khan v. State of M.P., (2023) 8 SCC 592]
Service Tax — Taxable Services — Banking and other financial services — Credit card services — S. 65(33-a)(iii) (w.e.f. 1-5-2006) and S. 66-B (inserted w.e.f. 1-7-2012) of the Finance Act, 1994: Applicability of S. 65(33-a)(iii) (w.e.f. 1-5-2006) and S. 66-B (inserted w.e.f. 1-7-2012) of the Finance Act, 1994, explained. Bank/institution, which issues credit card (issuing bank), held (per curiam), is a service provider vis-à-vis transaction involving swiping of credit card by customer, and consequential payment to merchant i.e. a point of sale (PoS) credit card transaction, both for pre and post 1-7-2012 period. However, disagreeing at the Bench on whether a PoS credit card transaction is to be split up, or, treated as a single unified service for the purposes of levy of service tax, matter referred to larger Bench. [CCE (GST) v. Citibank NA, (2023) 8 SCC 483]
Really privileged and excited to be the part of this legal journey.