Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The Supreme Court observed that effective relief can be granted to a worker only if the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the pleadings.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
“Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department would have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities.”
“Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so.”
In a case where a compromise was reached between parties, 28 years after an incident left the victim crippled for life, the Court said that such a brutality cannot be ignored which is not against the individual but the crime is against the society which has to be dealt with sternly.