Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: February 19 – February 23, 2024
1) Prosecution u/s 2(B)(I) UP Gangsters Act cannot be continued if FIR alleging 'predicate offences' gets quashed
The Court observed that prosecution under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 cannot be continued if the FIR alleging predicate offences is quashed.
In this case, the appellant was a member of a gang led by one Puskal Parag Dubey and an FIR was registered against him to impose restrictions on the activities of the gang. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act).
Cause Title- Farhana v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 118)
Date of Judgment- February 19, 2024
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta
2) Criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is for recovery of money under coercion & pressure
The Court observed that the criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is for recovery of money under coercion and pressure. It emphasized that the police must exercise heightened caution in case of dispute relating to unethical transactions between the private parties.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court by which it dismissed a writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR.
Cause Title- Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 117)
Date of Judgment- February 19, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
3) Writ petition not to be dismissed on ground of perceived futility merely because prayer sought is unattainable due to passage of time
The Court observed that, constitutional courts do not have to dismiss writ proceedings on the grounds of their perceived futility if the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to the passage of time.
The Court called out a “classic case of arbitrary action” by an educational institute and observed that reserving flexibility in the selection process cannot be read to invest an institute with unbridled discretion. The appellant had applied for the post of primary school teacher following a vacancy notification issued by Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped (Institute).
Cause Title- Manoj Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 126)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) Section 5 Limitation Act can be invoked to condone delay to file criminal appeal against acquittal u/s 378 CrPC
The Court held that Section 5 of Limitation Act can be invoked to condone the delay to file criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. It said that benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal since there are no exclusionary provisions related to limitation under Section 378 of CrPC.
In this case, the appellant's contention was that the High Court had no power to condone the delay since the provisions of the Limitation Act would not be applicable as Section 378 is a self-contained Code as far as limitation is concerned.
Cause Title- Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate Of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 125)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
5) Anomaly of having two reasonably possible views must be resolved in favour of accused: SC acquits man accused of killing his 2.5-year-old nephew
The Court acquitted a man who was convicted for alleged killing of his 2.5-year-old nephew by throwing him in the well. It reiterated that the anomaly of having two reasonably possible views in a matter is to be resolved in favour of the accused.
The accused had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which he was convicted.
Cause Title- Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 124)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
6) Can an employee withdraw prospective resignation before it becomes effective? Supreme Court explains
The Court held that in the absence of anything contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office or post and in the absence of any legal contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a female employee against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the Division Bench dismissed her appeal and confirmed the order of the Single Judge in a writ petition challenging the order of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal.
Cause Title- Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan through its Secretary and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 127)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
7) Parties need to be more careful while filing pleadings: SC warns of disastrous consequences for errors
The Court observed that parties need to be more careful while filing the pleadings in the Court as any error in the same may be disastrous for any of the parties. It remarked that when five different suits were filed by different persons in a property dispute, then “while filing the documents with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case.”
A civil suit was filed to address a dispute over the ownership and possession of a piece of land.
Cause Title- The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust & Anr. v. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 121)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Will non-recovery of weapon of crime, omission to seek ballistic opinion & non-examination of ballistic expert, be fatal to prosecution case?: SC explains
The Court observed that the non-recovery of the weapon of crime by itself will not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, it clarified that if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.
The Court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offence of murder.
Cause Title- Ram Singh v. The State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 128)
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
9) Section 59 Food Safety and Standards Act overrides Sections 272 & 273 IPC
The Court held that Section 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held thus in a batch of appeals in which the issue was about the interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of FSSA and Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
Cause Title- Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 138)
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
10) Non-Disclosure of criminal case not always fatal for employment: SC directs appointment of a candidate as police constable
The Court observed that non-disclosure of criminal case that ended in acquittal is not always fatal for candidate's employment.
The Court allowed the appeal filed by a man (a candidate to post of Constable) whose selection was cancelled on the ground that he did not disclose the criminal case against him.
Cause Title- Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 131)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
11) Recruitment rule does not prescribe subject wise speciality: SC upholds KPSC recruitment notification for Home Science lecturers’ post
The Court upheld a recruitment notification issued by Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) for the post of Home Science lecturers. It said that if the Rule does not prescribe a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for the Tribunal or the High Court to examine the propriety or the beneficial effect of the rule.
The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) had issued a notification for vacancy, out of which 18 positions were for Home Science lecturers. However, one of the candidates filed an Application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to quash the notification, arguing that the specialised subjects within Home Science were not specified. Although no interim order was issued by the Tribunal, recruitment was made pending the outcome of the Application.
Cause Title- Smt. Vidya K. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 137)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
12) 'Enemy Property' is not a property of union govt.; not exempt from municipal taxes
The Court held that property designated as 'enemy property,' under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and under the care of a 'custodian' appointed by the Union Government, does not qualify as Union Government property eligible for exemption from municipal taxes under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India.
The subject property, once owned by the Raja of Mahmudabad who migrated to Pakistan in 1947, was deemed an Enemy Property under the relevant Act. The respondent-assessee occupied and utilized a part of this property for profit. A dispute arose when municipal tax notices were issued to the custodian of the enemy property.
Cause Title- Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. vs Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt Ltd & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 135)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) Courts cannot examine correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy: SC dismisses plea to implement 'community kitchen' concept
The Court dismissed a petition seeking directions for the implementation of Community Kitchens across States and Union Territories. The court reiterated that it cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy.
The petition, filed by social activists, urged the Court to intervene and direct the Central and State governments to formulate schemes for Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation-related deaths.
Cause Title- Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 136)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
14) HC completely ignored SC judgment & pertinent directions regarding interest on refund: SC orders refund of excess coal lifting payments
The Court ordered a refund of excess payment made towards coal lifting holding that the Jharkhand High Court had completely ignored pertinent directions issued regarding interest rates on the refund.
Domco Smokeless Fuels, the appellant, had claimed to have paid a higher price than the notified price in an e-auction for coal lifting and sought a refund.
Cause Title- M/S. Domco Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 133)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) NCDRC cannot rewrite terms of agreement: SC directs builder to refund buyers for not delivering possession of apartments before agreed date
The Court, while directing a builder to refund buyers for not delivering possession of apartments before agreed date, observed that NCDRC cannot rewrite terms and conditions of an agreement.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by two buyers who were aggrieved by the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Cause Title- Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and another v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 132)
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2024
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
16) Supreme Court affirms ejectment orders passed against tenants in land owned by Palani temple
The Court affirmed ejectment orders passed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the Act) against a group of shop tenants within the premises of Arulmighu Dhandayuthpani Swamy Temple.
The shop tenants were inducted into various shops owned by the temple management and were subsequently declared as “encroachers” under Section 78 of the Act post the termination of their original lease/licence period. The High Court affirmed the impugned actions taken against the tenants and directed them to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises back to the temple management.
Cause Title- K. Balasubramani Etc. v. The Tamil Nadu Government & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 140)
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
17) Supreme Court passes ejectment order against an 82 year old man; directs him to vacate premises within a year
The Court passed an ejectment order against an eighty two year old man and directed him to vacate premises before 28th February 2025. It warned him that failure to comply with the terms of the resolution of the tenancy dispute could result in the landlord initiating either ejectment or contempt proceedings against the tenant.
The Court passed an ejectment order favouring a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 (the Act). A tenancy dispute arose between the parties regarding a property.
Cause Title- Swami Goverdhan Rangachariji & Ors. v. M/S. A.J. Printers (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 141)
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2024
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
18) Order issuing process u/s 204 CrPC has drastic consequences; requires application of mind & can’t be passed casually
The Court said that the order issuing process has drastic consequences and such orders require application of mind which cannot be passed casually. It quashed a complaint against the accused in a cheating case on the ground that very general allegations were made in the complaint.
The accused had filed an appeal seeking quashing of complaint alleging the commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 472 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Cause Title- Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 142)
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
19) "Completely illegal": SC upholds quashing of FIR against persons accused of storing large quanitity of cow meat
The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court judgment that quashed criminal proceedings against three persons accused of storing large quanitity of cow meat. The court said that the act of collection of sample of meat by a Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department, who had no authority in law to collect the sample, rendered the process of sample collection as illegal.
The appellant, who claimed to be an Animal Welfare Officer, had complained to an Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department (Assistant Director) about the illegal storage of a large quantity of cow meat in a godown that belonged to the respondents.
Cause Title- Joshine Antony v. Smt. Asifa Sultana & Ors. (Neutral Cittaion: 2024 INSC 144)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
20) An electoral misconduct by presiding officer himself: SC while declaring AAP’s Kuldeep Kumar to be validly elected candidate for Chandigarh mayor poll
The Court while declaring Kuldeep Kumar, the candidate of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as the validly elected candidate for the election as Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, said that there is an electoral misconduct by the Presiding Officer himself.
Kuldeep Kumar had filed an appeal against an interim order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in a writ petition alleging electoral malpractices by the presiding officer who conducted the election to the post of Mayor.
Cause Title- Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 129)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
21) Application for cancellation of bail on merits should normally be placed before same judge who granted bail
The Court observed that normally the application for cancellation of bail filed on merits should be placed before the same Single Judge who had granted bail.
The court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that cancelled the bail granted by another Judge of the same court, calling such an exercise of jurisdiction tantamount to “gross impropriety.” It also explained the difference between filing an application for violation of the conditions of a bail order from an application for cancellation of bail.
Cause Title- Himanshu Sharma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 139)
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
