Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.
Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court.
Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a
period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.
The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

Posted on October 21 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed guidelines while disposing the appearance of the petitioners u/s 205 CrPC.

7. Consequentially, we quash the order of the High Court dated 3.10.1996. However, we hasten to add that this order of ours is passed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to move the trial court for discharge. We are disposed to afford some more reliefs to the respondents. We notice that among the respondent some of them are ladies. So, if any of the respondents would apply before the trial court for exempting them from personal appearance the trial court shall exempt them from personal appearance on the following conditions:

1. He or she would not dispute his or her identity as the particular accused mentioned in the charge sheet.
2. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever the case is taken up.
3. They would be present in the court on the date when such presence becomes imperatively needed.

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (IK Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (CM Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (LD Ver)

Citations: [2000 ACR SC 3 2522], [2000 JT SC 10 479], [2002 SCC 10 401], [2001 AIR SC 0 2308], [2001 AIR SCW 2308]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1021734/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad69e4b014971141155c

https://legaldata.in/court/read/803964

Index here.

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Posted on October 16 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows, while referring to importance of quality of reasoned orders/judgments.

From Paras 15 and 16,

15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Citations:

Other Sources:

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Posted on October 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follow, relying on Vinod Kumar here.

The mandate of law itself postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be.
We do not want to dilate at this stage since the trial is pending but we would like to observe that the learned trial judge may take a note of the judgment of this Court in reference to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and not only expedite the trial but the examination-in-chief/cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following but no long adjournment should be granted while recording the statement of prosecution witnesses.

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Posted on October 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we felt inclined to pass similar order in the present matter too, where the High Court has proceeded to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the appellants on the condition of their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and also depositing a demand draft in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as an ad-interim victim compensation. However, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the expression “victim compensation” as used in the impugned order may not be apt for the reason that it was not a case of recovery of victim compensation but, otherwise, the condition cannot be said to be unjustified or onerous because receiving of the said sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the appellants at the time of marriage has not been a fact in dispute.
Even if we take the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on its face value, we are clearly of the view that in essence, the petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings and, ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment.
Having regard to the circumstances, in our view, the said condition of depositing a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be approved and else, the order granting bail deserves to be maintained. Hence, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration to the High Court and the order impugned deserves to be modified appropriately in these appeals only.
For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the order impugned is modified in the manner that while other directions and requirements of the order i.e., of releasing the appellants on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/-, shall remain intact but the other part of the order, requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-, shall stand annulled.

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Index of AB Matters here.

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Posted on October 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 15,

15. In this background, we find that the appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court. The present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground. However, there is another more serious ground on which the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

From Para 21,

21. This Court, in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others8 has held that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. It has been held that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. We find that respondent No.9 has not only suppressed a material fact but has also tried to mislead the High Court. On this ground also, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors

Posted on September 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A constitution bench of Apex Court is going to decide the fate of AIBE exam (SLP(C)No.22337/2008)…

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 20 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-27

Here is the causelist for 27 Sep 2022 and 28 Sep 2022

2022-09-27 Court-3 Constitution Bench

And here is the Order passed on 27-Sep-2022, saying Part-Heard.

2022-09-27 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 27 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-28

Arguments heard. Hearing Concluded. Judgment reserved.

2022-09-28 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Awaiting the pronouncement of the judgment.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

Posted on September 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows:

In respect of the aforesaid, it is clarified for the benefit of the parties with consent that the procedure to be followed by the Bar Council of India would be that persons who are in jobs and are desirous of taking the examination, will in advance inform the Bar Council of the factum of their employment and on being successful in the examination, an undertaking would be required that within six months they will take a call whether to resign or join the profession or they will still continue to work in their respective jobs, in which case, they would on a subsequent date being so desirous of joining the profession require to take the examination afresh and in case of resignation give proof thereof.

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

This is a connected matter to the Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors matter (pending from 2008)

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Posted on September 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding a query, whether a PoA Holder can file a complaint u/s 200 CrPC in a NI Act case.

From Para 26,

26) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Citations: [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 44], [2013 SCALE 11 360], [2013 KERLT 4 21], [2014 AIR SC 630], [2014 CALLT SC 1 53], [2014 PLJR 1 216], [2013 OLR 2 884], [2013 BC 4 212], [2013 CTC 5 560], [2014 SCC 11 790], [2013 CLA SC 117 4], [2013 COMPCAS SC 180 258], [2014 AKR 1 314], [2013 KLJ 4 279], [2014 LW 1 698], [2013 PLR 4 733], [2013 NCC 2 854], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 649], [2013 KHC 3 885], [2013 WLN SC 4 25], [2013 ALLCC 83 583], [2014 LW CRL 1 154], [2014 SCC CIV 4 343], [2013 SUPREME 6 705], [2014 CRLJ SC 576], [2013 AIOL 611], [2013 JT 12 524], [2013 SLT 8 133], [2014 DCR SC 1 135], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 839], [2013 AIC 131 160], [2014 ECRN 1 486], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 307], [2013 JCC NI SC 4 214], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 382], [2014 JLJR SC 1 48], [2013 BOMCR SC 6 424], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 306], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4048], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 213]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47858029/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ae4b0149711415b31

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/a-c-narayanan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-4779

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of U.P. and Ors on 19 Feb 2014

Posted on September 4 by ShadesOfKnife

The victim Lalita Kumari is recovered.

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of U.P. and Ors on 19 Feb 2014

The landmark judgment is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of U.P. and Ors on 19 Feb 2014