Blog Archives - Page 94 of 1684

26 Jan

Section 364A IPC Requires Proof of Abduction Coupled with Ransom Demand and Life Threat for Conviction: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Abduction, #IPC, #kidnapping, #LifeThreat, #ransom, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2019

Decided on: 3^rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court received two appeals challenging the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction order of the Trial Court. The appellants had been found guilty under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 364A. Notably, the third accused was acquitted by the Trial Court. According to the prosecution, the appellants kidnapped a Class 12th student with the intention of demanding ransom, and during the incident, they attempted to kill him. Despite suffering severe injuries, the victim managed to escape, resulting in the amputation of his right leg. The accused had lured the victim, who was staying as a paying guest, for a motorcycle ride but later assaulted him, attempting to strangle him. Believing him to be dead, the accused poured petrol on him, set him on fire, and looted his mobile phone and cash. Miraculously, the victim survived, escaped, and sought medical assistance, leading to police intervention.

Issue

The main issue is the conviction of appellants for abduction, attempted murder, and ransom demand, leading to life imprisonment, with a key legal question about the sufficiency of evidence.

Legal Provision

Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an offence where kidnapping or abduction is made and a person is put to death or hurt; or a person is threatened with death or actually murdered, on demand of ransom.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) does not apply if kidnapping or abduction occurs without any ransom demand. The Court resolved an appeal challenging the High Court’s affirmation of the conviction order by the Trial Court under Sections 307, 120B, 364-A, 392, and 397 of the IPC. It noted the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of a ransom call, leading to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held liable under Section 364A IPC. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that Section 364A involves kidnapping or abduction resulting in a person’s death or harm, or a threat of death or murder upon a ransom demand.

The Court referred to the case of Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana [(2021) 9 SCC 59], highlighting three conditions to establish an offense under Section 364A. First, there must be a kidnapping or abduction. Second, there should be a threat of death or harm to the person, or the accused’s conduct must reasonably indicate such a threat. Third, the act must aim to compel the government, foreign state, intergovernmental organization, or any other person to perform or abstain from an act or pay a ransom.

The Court observed that the victim did not mention any ransom demand during examination, and the only mention in a supplementary police statement lacked substantial evidence. The Court criticized the Trial Court and High Court for overlooking this critical flaw in Section 364A evidence. It corrected the High Court’s characterization of the supplementary statement as a “dying declaration,” clarifying it as a statement under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The Bench partially allowed the appeals, changing the Section 364A conviction to Section 364 IPC with a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the accused. The remaining convictions under Sections 307, 120B, 392, and 397 IPC were upheld, along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- directed to be paid to the victim under Section 357A of CrPC. The Court thus disposed of the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

26 Jan

JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE NOT ON PAR WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: SUPREME COURT

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # government, #Employees, #judicial, #Judiciary, #SupremeCourt

Case title: All India Judges Association V. Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition Civil no. 643 of 2015

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present writ petitions are concerning the allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by Second National judicial pay commission.

This Court adopted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations on the revision of judicial officers’ salary and pension by orders dated July 27, 2022, April 5, 2023, and May 19, 2023. Justice P V Reddy, a former judge of this Court of India, chaired the commission.

The court noted that, with the exception of three allowances that were modified, the allowances recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Shetty Commission, were upheld by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India in 2002. Following that, this Court accepted all allowances recommended by the subsequent pay commission, the Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Justice Padmanabhan Committee, in its decision All India Judges Association v Union of India 2010.

In the report, the SNJPC took twenty-one allowances into account. Two new allowances are suggested among the SNJPC’s recommended allowances, and one allowance has two more components added to it.

The SNJPC has given state governments and union territories the opportunity to object to the allowances proposed. This Court’s record contains objections.

PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS:

The objections said by governments are that there will be a greater financial burden and expense as a result of the rate revision or, if applicable, the new allowances. It is necessary to abide by the allowance payment regulations set forth by each State for its own administrative establishment. Judicial officers must receive benefits that are commensurate with those of other government employees.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court on same benefits as govt. employees held that Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the state’s functions, contributing to the constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in the responsibilities entrusted to District Judiciary officers to provide objective justice to citizens. The State is responsible for ensuring that the conditions of service, both during and after office tenure, as well as the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service.

The court on one of the objections raised by government that a financial burden cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the state’s mandatory duties. One such duty is to provide necessary service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions. There is also a need to maintain consistency in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the argument that each state’s rules must govern pay and allowances lacks substance. It would be completely inappropriate to compare judicial service to that of other state officers. Members of the judicial service have distinct functions, duties, restrictions, and restraints that apply both during and after service.

The court accepted the 21 recommendations of SNJPC and directed the formation of a Committee in each High Court to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC’s recommendations as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be known as the “Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary.” All states and union territories must now act promptly in accordance with the aforementioned directives. Disbursements for arrears of salary, pension, and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers, and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before February 29, 2024. The CSCDJs established in accordance with the previously issued directives must monitor compliance.

By no later than April 7, 2024, each Committee operating under the High Court’s auspices must submit its report to this Court through the High Court’s Registrar General.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

26 Jan

Supreme Court Sets Standard Operating Procedure on Personal Appearance of Government Officials; Bars High Court Chief Justices from Framing Post-Retirement Benefit Rules.

Prime Legal

Blog #Govt.Official, #postretirementbenefits, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 23-24 of 2024

Decided on: 3^rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case

On April 4, 2023, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to notify rules regarding domestic help for former Chief Justices and Judges of the Allahabad High Court. The government sought a recall of this order, citing legal obstacles. On April 29, 2023, the High Court deemed the recall application as contemptuous, initiating criminal contempt proceedings against government officials. Some officials were taken into custody, and warrants were issued for others. The dispute originated from a 2011 petition by the Association of Retired Judges seeking increased allowances. The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the state, and the government revised post-retirement benefits. The Association sought parity with Andhra Pradesh’s scheme, leading to further court orders. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the High Court possessed the authority to instruct the State Government to promulgate Rules recommended by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former High Court Judges;
Whether the High Court could invoke the power of criminal contempt against Uttar Pradesh government officials based on the contention that the application for recall was deemed ‘contemptuous’; and
Establishing the overarching principles that should govern courts when directing the appearance of government officials in court.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has established a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) concerning the appearance of Government Officials in court proceedings. The three-Judge Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasized that summoning government officials should not be wielded as a tool to pressure the government, particularly under the threat of contempt. The SOP, developed through collaborative discussions, underscores the need for courts to exercise consistency and restraint, guiding them away from arbitrarily summoning government officials and promoting a mature approach.

The Court highlighted that summoning officials should not be the first resort, and while the actions of public officials are subject to judicial review, frequent summoning without just cause is impermissible. In a specific case, the Court ruled that the High Court lacked the authority to direct the State Government to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former High Court Judges. The Chief Justice was deemed incompetent to frame rules under Article 229 of the Constitution, and the High Court, acting judicially, couldn’t direct the government to frame rules administratively.

The Court observed that the power of criminal contempt could not be invoked against Uttar Pradesh government officials based on the alleged ‘contemptuous’ nature of the recall application. It clarified that the officials’ conduct did not meet the standards of both criminal and civil contempt. The Court criticized the High Court’s practice of frequently summoning government officials to pressure the government under the threat of contempt, deeming it impermissible and contrary to the constitutional scheme.

The Court concluded by stating that the SOP on Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings, as outlined in the judgment, must be adhered to by all courts nationwide. It urged all High Courts to consider framing rules regulating the appearance of government officials in court, taking into account the formulated SOP. The Apex Court disposed of the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

26 Jan

JUDICIAL REVIEW: COURTS CANNOT DELVE INTO THE MATTERS OF INSTITUTION’S REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #Adani, #CBI, #Hinderburg, #judgment, #law, #Regulations, #SEBI, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition (C) no. 162 of 2023

Decided on: 03.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In February 2023, a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution raised concerns about the decline in investor wealth and market volatility caused by a drop in the Adani Group of Companies’ share prices.

Hindenburg Research, a “activist short seller,” allegedly caused the situation by publishing a report on the Adani group’s financial transactions on January 24, 2023. The report alleged, that the Adani group manipulated share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of SEBI regulations and securities legislation.

In WP (C) No.162 of 2023 the petitioner seeks the constitution of a committee monitored by a retired judge of this Court to investigate the Hindenburg Report.

In WP (C) No.201 of 2023, the petitioner claims that the Adani group has “surreptitiously controlled more than 75% of the shares of publicly listed Adani group companies, thereby manipulating the price of its shares in the market,” in violation of Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The petitioner requests that the CBI or a Special Investigation Team conduct a court-monitored investigation into the fraud allegations and the alleged involvement of high-ranking officials of public sector banks and lending organisations.

In WP(Crl.) No. 57 of 2023, the petitioner requests that competent investigative agencies to (i) look into Adani Group transactions under the supervision of a sitting judge of this Court, and (ii) look into the involvement of the State Bank of India and the Life Insurance Corporation of India in these transactions.

In order to safeguard Indian investors from market volatility, the court stated that it was necessary to review and strengthen the financial sector’s current regulatory framework. This Court requested comments from the Solicitor General regarding the suggested formation of an Expert Committee for that reason.

The Court noted that SEBI had already taken over the investigation into the Adani group and ordered SEBI to proceed with the investigation, wrap it up in two months, and submit a status report to the Court.

Additionally, the court mandated the creation of an expert committee. This Court made it clear that SEBI and the Expert Committee would cooperate with one another. To put it another way, the SEBI investigation would continue unabated despite the Committee’s appointment. It is required of the Expert Committee to provide this Court with its report in a period of two months.

After that this Court received the Expert Committee’s report. The Court issued an order on May 17, 2023, granting SEBI an extension until August 14, 2023, for the submission of its investigation status report. Informing this Court of the progress of their twenty-four investigations, SEBI filed an interlocutory application on August 14, 2023. In addition, SEBI filed a status report describing the twenty-four investigations on August 25, 2023. SEBI has responded to the Expert Committee’s report, as has the petitioners’ legal representative.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The case is based on the Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules 1957 which mandates a minimum of 25% public shareholding. The petitioners contended that By secretly controlling more than 75% of the shares of publicly listed Adani group companies, thereby manipulating the price of its shares in the market,” the Adani group is in violation of Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether it is possible to seek judicial review of SEBI’s regulatory framework?

Whether the court has the power to transfer the investigation from SEBI to another agency or a SIT?

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, broadly pressed his case for the following two requests: first, to establish a SIT to oversee the SEBI investigation into the Adani group and to have all such investigations court-monitored; and second, to direct SEBI to revoke certain amendments to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investments) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

The investments by FPIs violate Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Rules, 1957 which requires a minimum 25% public shareholding in all public-listed companies.

SEBI’sinabilitytoestablishaprimafaciecaseofregulatorynon-compliance and legal violations by the Adani group promoters despite starting an investigation in November 2020, appears to be prima facie self-inflicted. The unprecedented rise in the price of the Adani scrips occurred between January 2021 and December 2022, over a period when the Adani group was already under SEBI investigation.

They alleged that SEBI has wilfully delayed submitting its status report on the Adani group investigation within the time frame specified by this Court.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents contended that SEBI has completed 22 of the 24 investigations it is currently conducting. In these investigations, enforcement actions/quasi-judicial proceedings would be initiated, where applicable. The delay by SEBI in filing the report is only ten days, which is unintentional and not wilful, given that twenty-four investigations were to be conducted.

They submitted that initially, the FPI Regulations permitted “opaque structures” under certain conditions, including the obligation to disclose beneficial owner information if requested. The subsequent amendment mandated the upfront disclosure of beneficial owners by FPIs. This rendered the disclosure clause redundant, resulting in its omission in 2019. The amendments tightened the regulatory framework by mandating disclosure requirements and eliminating the requirement to disclose only when requested.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENNT

The court on judicial review held that the courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities determining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to expert regulatory agencies on policy matters that they have the authority to formulate. When examining a policy formulated by a specialised regulator, the scope of judicial review is to determine whether it (i) violates citizens’ fundamental rights; (ii) is contrary to Constitutional provisions; (iii) contradicts a statutory provision; or (iv) is manifestly arbitrary. Judicial review focuses on the policy’s legality, rather than its wisdom or soundness.

It held that the statutory regulator should not intervene in the policies that result from technical questions, especially in the fields of economics and finance, when experts in the field have voiced their opinions and the regulator has taken due consideration. As a regulatory, adjudicatory, and prosecutorial body, SEBI’s wide-ranging powers, expertise, and strong information-gathering system give its decisions a great degree of credibility. As such, this Court must be aware of the public interest guiding SEBI’s operations and refrain from imposing its own judgement on SEBI’s decisions.

The court on transfer of investigation has held that the authority to create a SIT or transfer an investigation from a recognised agency to the CBI. These kinds of authority ought to be applied rarely and only in dire situations. Generally speaking, the court will not substitute the authority vested with the investigative power unless it is demonstrated that the authority vested with the investigative power acted blatantly, intentionally, and wilfully ignorant of the facts. In the absence of the authority to transfer, the court may not use such powers unless there is a strong case showing that justice will likely be compromised.

The court also said that the petitioner must provide compelling evidence that the investigating agency was biased or that the investigation was inadequate. Only very rare and extraordinary situations may warrant the transfer of an investigation to an agency like the CBI. Furthermore, since the only thing that can be pleaded for is that the offence be thoroughly investigated, no one can demand that the offence be looked into by a particular agency.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

26 Jan

Supreme Court of India upholds the conviction of murdering two family members

Prime Legal

Blog

Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL OF 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019

Dated on: 3.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Facts of the case

In the present case Rajini (Victim) was missing for months before his father, Rajaram, returned from France to India on 20.04.2008. Upon his return, Rajaram noticed that the articles in his property at No.13, Chinna Vaikkal street, Puducherry, where Rajini resided, were scattered and his motorcycle, which Rajini used, was also missing. Rajaram was murdered on 21.04.2008. The appellant, Perumal, a close relative of Rajini and Rajaram, wanted to acquire Rajaram’s property at No.13, Chinna Vaikkal street, Puducherry. Rajaram and his son Rajini were hindrances to this acquisition. There were also family disputes relating to another property in Kurumbapet. Based on the disclosure statement made by Perumal on 25.04.2008, decomposed human body parts were recovered from two nylon sack bags and human bones were recovered from a sump tank at the above-mentioned property. A superimposition report by C. Pushparani, Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, confirmed that the recovered skull and mandible were that of the deceased Rajini. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained due to decomposition. However, the bones were identified as belonging to a person between 25-30 years of age, and the death had probably occurred six months before the autopsy. Rajini, who had been missing for about six months, was 30 years old. Rajaram’s motorcycle, keys, insurance papers, and other personal belongings were recovered from Mohan Kumar and a juvenile.

Legal provision

The case deals with the interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds of lack of direct evidence, inconsistency in the medical evidence, non-compliance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and absence of any independent corroboration. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a provision that allows the admission of information given by an accused person that leads to the discovery of a fact relevant to the case.

In this case, the prosecution relied on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, Perumal Raja, who confessed to killing Rajini and disposing of his body parts in a sump tank and a canal. The court while referring to several other judgements held that Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which prohibit confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody, unless made in the presence of a magistrate. Section 27 requires that the information given by the accused must distinctly relate to the fact discovered as a consequence of the information, and not to any other fact already known or disclosed. It is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events, which means that the discovery of a fact in consequence of the information given by the accused lends assurance to the credibility of the information.

It was also held Section 27 does not equate the discovery of a fact with the object produced or found, but includes the place from which the object is produced, the knowledge of the accused as to its existence, and the connection between the object and the offence.

The court observed that Section 27 is vulnerable to abuse by the police, and the courts must be vigilant in ensuring its proper application. However, this does not mean that every invocation of Section 27 must be seen with suspicion and discarded as unreliable. Section 27 applies to joint disclosures, but not to cases where the same information is given by a co-accused who is in custody, as that would amount to repetition and not discovery. It does not mean that the discovery of a fact is conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused, but it is a relevant circumstance that must be considered along with other evidence. The court has to analyse whether the discovery of a fact points to the involvement of the accused in the offence, or is compatible with his innocence.

It was additionally observed that Section 27 also attracts Section 8 of the Evidence Act, which relates to the conduct of the accused about any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of the accused in giving information that leads to the discovery of a fact is relevant as showing his knowledge or mental awareness of the fact.

Court analysis and judgement

In the present case Based on the above observations and the presence of sufficient motive due to the property dispute the court upheld the conviction of the appellant in this case and held that the evidence led by the prosecution was protected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which acts as an exception to Section 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. The court also acquitted the co-accused of the appellant, Mohan Kumar due to the non-applicability of Section 27 and Section 8 of the Evidence Act. While the Juvenile was also acquitted under sections 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

1 … 92 93 94 95 96 … 1,684