Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This matter was the oldest pending nine-judge Bench case before the Supreme court. The Bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on 14-03-2024
“An order granting a stay to the operation of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in very rare cases”
Section 19(b) provides that a specific performance of a contract may be enforced against any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.
The Court was considering whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps Pin with the investigating officer to access his location violates right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court adequately protects the interests of the Federation as all the appointments have been made subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition”
“The requirement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 of confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction and this is a rule of fairness.”
Looking into Justice Abhay S. Oka’s life, career and important judgments which have been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized communities and promoting freedom of expression, thereby making him a harbinger of social change and preserver of administrative accountability.
“While deciding that whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt arising out of a transaction covered by an agreement or arrangement in writing, it is necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing.”
Supreme Court viewed that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, especially when no antecedents of the accused have been brought on record.
Supreme Court questioned the haste shown by the Central Govt issuing impugned notification during nationwide lockdown and held the inclusion of item 6 to be illegal.
Supreme Court in the instant matter explained that when offence under Sections 272 and 273 was made out, offence under Section 59 of FSSA would be attracted.
“Any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”
“The benefit of duty drawback would take effect from the date of enforcement of the Exim Policy and in case of belated refund of duty drawback, interest rate fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time is applicable”.
“The punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Supreme Court listed the next date for the instant matter as 19-02-2024.
“The Court also held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must be shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.”
Supreme Court clarified that if the accused and his advocate are non- conversant with the language, the question of providing translation may arise because the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself by understanding the material against him in the charge sheet.
Looking into Justice Abhay S. Oka’s life, career and important judgments which have been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized communities and promoting freedom of expression, thereby making him a harbinger of social change and preserver of administrative accountability.
Supreme Court proceeded with the fact that the only circumstance appearing against the appellant was not put to him in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC.
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.