{"id":215869,"date":"2019-06-20T16:30:13","date_gmt":"2019-06-20T11:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=215869"},"modified":"2019-06-21T15:28:01","modified_gmt":"2019-06-21T09:58:01","slug":"2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Acquittal of accused due to tainted investigation:<\/strong> In this case, report of SIT which had re-investigated the case under one of the FIRs, perused. Direction issued to CBI, to take decision on question of re-investigation in FIRs concerned. [Sunita Devi v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 658<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary \u2014 Judiciary \u2014 Adequacy of judicial resources\/infrastructure \u2014 Funding for infrastructure of subordinate judiciary by Central and State Governments: <\/strong>Out of two reports submitted by Amicus Curiae viz. short-term measures and long-term measures, short-term measures directed to be implemented immediately. Directions issued. For receipt of reply by Central Government on long-term measures, matter directed to be listed on 23-4-2019. [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2019) 5 SCC 619<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 154 and 162 \u2014 First information report \u2014 Legal validity of lodging of a second FIR: <\/strong>Regarding whether the FIR and investigation in pursuance thereof should be straightway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial on issue of prejudice to accused, and truthfulness of evidence collected on basis of second FIR, matter referred to larger Bench. [Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 667<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 173(8), 190(1)(b), 239, 227 and 156(3): Power of Judicial Magistrate concerned to pass order as to Further investigation\/Reinvestigation \u2014 Scope:<\/strong> Making distinction between the powers to be exercised by Magistrate with respect to further investigation at pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage, held, Magistrate cannot suo motu direct for further investigation\/reinvestigation in a matter at post-cognizance stage, more particularly after he discharges the accused. In such cases, it is only on an application moved by the investigating agency for further investigation that the Magistrate may direct the investigating officer to conduct further investigation and submit a fresh report before him for consideration in accordance with law. [Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 482 and 320 \u2014 Quashment of non-compoundable offences \u2014 When permissible: <\/strong>Key issue while determining quashment of non-compoundable offences is whether offence in question was more in the nature of a crime against society, or more a personal wrong. Offence under S. 307 IPC is non-compoundable and as the offence under S. 307 is not a private dispute between the parties inter se, but is a crime against society, quashing of proceedings on basis of a compromise is not permissible. [State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar, (2019) 5 SCC 570<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 482 and 320 \u2014 Quashment of non-compoundable offences \u2014 When permissible \u2014 Effect of compromise:<\/strong> In this case, law summarised regarding seriousness of crime and its social impact, as key consideration. Non-application of mind on sole ground that there is a compromise between accused and complainant, held, unwarranted. Power of quashing different from power of compounding. There is no conflict in decisions. High Court misread and misapplied precedents. Impugned orders of High Court set aside. [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Foreigners Act, 1946 \u2014 Ss. 9 and 14 \u2014 Whether appellant declared to be a foreigner incorrectly:<\/strong> Foreigner\u2019s Tribunal after finding discrepancy in name of grandfather, and fact that grandfather and father later lived in different villages, declared appellant to be a foreigner, which was held to be not sustainable by the Supreme Court. [Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam, (2019) 5 SCC 534<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Insurance \u2014 General Insurance \u2014 Other Insurances:<\/strong> Insurance claim on account of loss\/damage to the road owing to abnormal rainfall and waterlogging, rejected when rains were minimal and normal wear and tear stood excluded in the insurance policy. [Mahavir Road and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 677<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Labour Law \u2014 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 \u2014 Ss. 3, 4 and 20(3) \u2014 Quantum of compensation \u2014 Determination of \u2014 Parity:<\/strong> High Court by impugned judgment granted 200% compensation of claim in this case while in identical cases in case of similarly placed workers awarding 100% compensation, which was held to be unsustainable. [Union of India v. Avtar Chand], (2019) 5 SCC 597<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Land Acquisition and Requisition \u2014 Resettlement and Rehabilitation \u2014 Absorption of displaced person due to establishment of Arrah-Sasaram Railway Project:<\/strong>\u00a0 In this case entire house belonging to father of appellant acquired for railways project rendering him as displaced person. As per policy Circular of 1983 such displaced persons would be considered for employment in Groups C and D. As case of appellant was not considered, writ petition was filed. High Court directed Railway Authorities to consider claim of appellant in Group D. Relying on subsequent policy Circular of 2006, claim of appellant rejected. Writ petition challenging rejection was dismissed by Single Judge and by Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that as per Circular of 1983 provision made for employment of members of families displaced due to acquisition of land for establishment of project. This Circular of 1983 was adverted to in 2006 and decided that policy to not to offer employment to displaced person where only strip of land acquired but \u201cwhere large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away\/snapped in process\u201d such persons can be considered for appointment for Group D posts. Phrases in this paragraph are disjunctive. Further held, it was undisputed that entire house of appellant was demolished. Case of appellant fell within Para 2 of 2006 Circular. Railway Authorities erred in concluding that only strip of land belonging to appellant was acquired and erred in contending that there were no specific guidelines to provide job in lieu of acquisition in project concerned. Rejection of claim of appellant was for extraneous reasons and irrelevant considerations. Once policy has been laid down, terms of policy can be enforced. Policy circulars were substantive attempts to enhance social welfare. Denial of benefits led to long and tortuous road to justice. Hence, directions issued for appointment of appellant for Group D posts within two months by granting age relaxation, if required. [Anil Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 591<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 \u2014 S. 44(1)(e) \u2014 Objective, Nature, Scope and Essentialities for its application \u2014 Summarised:<\/strong> It is applicable even in case of temporary construction. Interplay between S. 44(1)(e) and criminal liability for illegal construction. Spouse of Councillor involved in illegal temporary construction \u2014 Disqualification of Councillor, held, justified. It was held, after 73rd and 74th Amendments to Constitution, Councillors are democratically elected representatives of people at grass root level. Objective behind S. 44(1)(e) of 1965 Act is to ensure highest level of probity maintained by Councillor and nearest members of his\/her family. Legislature distinguished between \u201cillegal or unauthorised construction\u201d and \u201cillegal or unauthorised construction being constructed by Councillor\u2019s spouse or dependants\u201d. Legislative intention is that Councillor would not carry out any such construction and would also be in position to prevent such construction by his\/her spouse or dependant. Further held, S. 44(1)(e) requires reasonable interpretation and if ingredients of this section are established, it has to be given full play. Under S. 44(1)(e) even temporary construction or structure illegally made by Councillor or his\/her spouse or dependant would incur disqualification. S. 44(1)(e) creates independent liability of disqualification. It is not dependent on criminal action preceding it. Making unauthorized construction would have penal consequence and would not have any influence on courts. [Sampada Yogesh Waghdhare v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 682<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 166 and 168 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Computation \u2014 Multiplier:<\/strong> In case of death of a bachelor computation of compensation is to be based on age of deceased and not age of parents. This position of law has been settled by three three-Judge Bench decisions which have then affirmed by a five-Judge Bench. There is no warrant to once again reopen this issue, contended by the insurance company. [Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 166, 168 and 173 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Just compensation \u2014 Future prospects:<\/strong> Deceased self-employed and of 23 yrs of age, an addition of 40% of established income is required to be provided applying Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680<\/a>. [Shantaben v. National Power Transport, (2019) 5 SCC 623<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 \u2014 Conviction \u2014 Sustainability:<\/strong> Reliance on testimony of witness who was disbelieved qua other co-accused, held, did not vitiate the case against appellant, which was proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction confirmed. [Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC 646<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 \u2014 Murder:<\/strong> In this case, it was alleged that deceased was murdered by accused neighbour and frequent visitor, by strangulation for resisting his sexual advances, which he orchestrated as a suicide. On the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen together, extra-judicial confession, unexplained injuries on accused, abscondence and medical evidence establishing strangulation as cause of death, conviction was confirmed. [Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 663<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. I \u2014 Single blow\/injury \u2014 Death of deceased because of single injury caused on his head by accused with axe:<\/strong> There is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, S. 302 would not be attracted. Nature of weapon used and vital part of body, where blow is struck, would prove intention of accused to cause death of deceased. Once such ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows. [State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. I [S. 300 Exception I] \u2014 Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder:<\/strong> Ingredients of S. 300 Exception 1, held, not attracted in this case. Culpable homicide is not murder if offender causes death of person who gave provocation, whilst deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and provocation should be one which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. No overt act alleged against deceased by which it can be stated that respondent was provoked by deceased to satisfy requirements of first proviso to Exception I to S. 300 IPC. From proved facts of this case it appears that provocation was voluntary on part of offender. Such provocation cannot come to rescue of respondent to claim that he is not liable to be convicted under S. 302 IPC, hence, conviction under S. 302 IPC, restored. [State of U.P. v. Faquirey, (2019) 5 SCC 605<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 376 and 506 \u2014 Rape and intimidation alleged \u2014 Delay in FIR \u2014 Extra-judicial confession \u2014 Credibility of prosecutrix:<\/strong> In this case, as prosecution was not able to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, conviction reversed. [Parkash Chand v. State of H.P., (2019) 5 SCC 628<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 379, 427, 447, 504 and 506 r\/w S. 149 \u2014 Appeal against acquittal:<\/strong> As there were inconsistencies and insufficiency of evidence to prove charges against accused there was no perversity in judgment of acquittal of trial court, hence, acquittal restored. [Puni Devi v. Tulsi Ram, (2019) 5 SCC 588<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Writ jurisdiction \u2014 New plea: <\/strong>It is settled law that if plea is not taken in pleadings by parties and no issue on such plea was, therefore, framed and no finding was recorded either way by trial court or first appellate court, such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by party for the first time in third court whether in appeal, revision or writ, for want of any factual foundation and finding. More so, when such plea is founded on factual pleadings and requires evidence to prove i.e. a mixed question of law and fact and not pure jurisdictional legal issue requiring no facts to probe. [Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2019) 5 SCC 537<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Compassionate appointment \u2014 Claim for:<\/strong> Regarding applicability of old scheme for compassionate appointment vis-\u00e0-vis new substituted scheme for ex gratia payment, as there were conflicting decisions of two-Judge Benches of Supreme Court regarding applicability of governing scheme, matter referred to larger Bench. [SBI v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Pay \u2014 Parity in Pay\/Pay Scale \u2014 Petitioners working in National Institute like appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad, (2010) 14 SCC 323 \u2014 Prayer to grant pay scale of Rs 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 pursuant to 4th<\/sup> Central Pay Commission recommendation and consequent revisions on parity with appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad case \u2014 Sustainability:<\/strong> In this case, petitioners were appointed as Junior Stenographer\/Stenographer Grade II which was post lower than post of Stenographer\/Stenographer Grade I held by appellants carrying different pay scales. The Supreme Court held that UDCs\/Junior Stenographer (Stenographer Grade I) who acquired identical pay scales as those of Assistants\/Senior Stenographers\/Stenographer Grade I by virtue of ACP\/MACP cannot be considered on par so as to be entitled to parity of pay scales. Pay scale of Rs 1640-2900 for post of Senior Stenographer\/Stenographer Grade I was operationalised during 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 till 31-12-2005. Petitioners were not holding Senior Stenographer Grade I position then but were promoted subsequently. Petitioners not being similarly situated as appellants cannot be granted parity in pay scale. [Anjali Arora v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 609<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Pay \u2014 Pay scale, fixation and revision \u2014 Pay revision \u2014 Reduction in pay \u2014 Permissibility:<\/strong> In this case appellant posted at Johannesburg in appellant Bank on 24-6-2002 on fixed salary of US $1965 p.m. \u201csubject to change\u201d. Salary of respondent re-fixed as US $1300 w.e.f. 1-1-2001 which was subsequently revised to US $1380 on 14-12-2001 based on non-discriminatory formula approved by Standing Committee applicable to all officers of PSU banks posted abroad, hence, affirmed. [SBI v. Ravindra Nath, (2019) 5 SCC 612<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Promotion \u2014 Criteria\/Eligibility \u2014 Promotion to post of Deputy Tahsildar:<\/strong> Direction to classify Direct Recruit Assistants, Promotee Graduate Assistants and Promotee Non-Graduate Assistants as one group for drawing seniority list for promotion by relying on Letter No. 392 dt. 30-12-2011 whereby Government had accepted proposal of Principal Secretary to dispense with graduation as minimum educational qualification for post of Deputy Tahsildar, unsustainable. [A. Rajagopalan v. District Collector, (2019) 5 SCC 560<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Acquittal of accused due to tainted investigation: In this case, report of SIT which had <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":182154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[36132],"class_list":["post-215869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4"],"yoast_head":"\n2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Acquittal of accused due to tainted investigation: In this case, report of SIT which had\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2230,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/01\\\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14 2019 Part 4\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cases Reported\",\"SCC Weekly\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/\",\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/01\\\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/01\\\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/01\\\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/20\\\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4","og_description":"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Acquittal of accused due to tainted investigation: In this case, report of SIT which had","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4","datePublished":"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/"},"wordCount":2230,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","keywords":["2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14 2019 Part 4"],"articleSection":["Cases Reported","SCC Weekly"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/","name":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2019-06-20T11:00:13+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-21T09:58:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/20\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-14-2019-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 14, 2019 Part 4"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":211162,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/01\/direction-to-implement-short-term-measures-for-funding-for-infrastructure-of-subordinate-judiciary-issued\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":0},"title":"Direction to implement \u2018short-term measures\u2019 for funding for infrastructure of subordinate judiciary issued","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has directed the short-term measures as suggested by the amicus curiae regarding funding for infrastructure of subordinate judiciary by the Central Government and the State Governments be implemented, while the Central Government responds\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":313963,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/14\/2024-scc-vol-1-part-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":1},"title":"2024 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 141 and 137 \u2014 Applicability of law declared by Supreme Court: Clarification application as to applicability of law declared by Supreme Court to particular case\/matter is not maintainable. [Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., (2024) 1 SCC 544] Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 233\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/2024-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/2024-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/2024-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/2024-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211134,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-february-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup – February 2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 TOP STORIES \u00a0SC orders forced eviction of more than 1,000,000 tribals from from forestlands across 16 states The Court has directed the Chief Secretaries of all the 16 States to ensure that where the rejection orders have been passed, eviction will be carried out on or before the next\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/08\/2019-scc-vol-2-march-7-2019-part-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":3},"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 March 7, 2019 Part 4","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Education Law \u2014 Medical and Dental Colleges \u2014 Closure\/Derecognition\/De-affiliation of medical college: Until S. 10-A IMC Act permission and affiliation is granted, students would not be permitted to sit in first year MBBS examination. Directions issued for grant of said permission\/affiliation. Police directed to immediately seal premises until State Government\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":224122,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/10\/2019-scc-vol-10-december-28-2019-part-5\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":4},"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 10 December 28, 2019 Part 5","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises \u2014 Transfer of lease\/allotted plot: In this case, industrial land was given to the original allottee at a price fixed by Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA). The Supreme Court held that when the allottee transfers and gets something more for the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220118,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/27\/bombay-bar-association-strongly-disapproves-collegiums-manner-of-decision-making-pertaining-to-the-elevation-of-justice-a-a-kureshi\/","url_meta":{"origin":215869,"position":5},"title":"Bombay Bar Association strongly disapproves Collegium’s manner of decision-making pertaining to the elevation of Justice A. A. Kureshi","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"In view of decisions of the Supreme Court of India starting from First Judge\u2019s case (S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87), Second Judge\u2019s case: Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association v. Union of India\u00a0 (1993) 4 SCC 441; Third Judge\u2019s Case : Re Special Reference No. 1\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/BBA.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/BBA.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/BBA.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/BBA.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/BBA.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215869\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/182154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}