0

Supreme court decides on Moratorium’s scope: Individuals are held liable along with Director

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Supreme court decides on Moratorium’s scope: Individuals are held liable along with Director

CASE TITLE- Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) Vs M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

CASE NUMBER- Civil Appeal No(S). 4247 Of 2023

DATED ON- 17.01.2024

QUORUM- Honourable Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honourable Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS OF THE CASE

A complaint was filed by the homebuyers before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the Developer and NCDR directed the developer to complete the project in all respects and handover the possession of the allotted flats/apartments to the members of the Association of the homebuyers within the time specified. A direction was issued giving an option to the homebuyers, that if they are not interested to wait any more for taking possession of the allotted Apartment and they want refund of their deposited amount with interest @9% p.a. The appellants sought to execute the directions of the National Commission not only against the company but also against the several individuals. By the impugned orders, the National Commission held that the decree cannot be executed against the company due to the operation of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Thereafter, the National Commission observed that in view of moratorium against the company, it would not be appropriate to proceed in the same execution against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9. The other opposite parties were not parties in the main complaint. Therefore, the present appeal was sought.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 (the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) to the execution are otherwise liable?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel for the appellant contented that under the provisions of the IBC, there is no prohibition on proceeding against the directors/officers of the company, which is the subject-matter of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. A reliance is placed by the appellant on the second proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 32A of the IBC and a decision of this Court in the case of P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd and Anjali Rathi and others vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Others. Therefore, the view taken by the National Commission is erroneous.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The learned counsel for the respondent contented that there is no liability fastened on the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9. It is submitted that the National Commission has held that the opposite parties were not parties to the main complaint. Referring to the case of Anjali Rathi, the Court permitted the appellants to proceed against the promoters of the company, which was subject to moratorium only because there was a settlement arrived at between them before this Court. He further submitted that these opponents cannot be held liable. National Commission has not made any adjudication on the question whether the opposite parties in the execution application were under an obligation to abide by the directions issued against the company. There is no finding recorded by the National Commission that moratorium will apply to the directors/officers of the company.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court analyzed that, only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 for execution, they are also liable to abide by and comply with the order, which is passed against the company. The protection of the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers of the company. The appeal was partly allowed and the court set aside the impugned judgments and orders and remit the execution application to the National Commission.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak

Click here to read the Judgement

0

SC SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF DYING DECLARATION

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Case Name: NAEEM. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978 of 2024

Dated: March 05, 2024

Quorum: Honourable Justice B.R. Gavaskar & Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appeals challenge the judgement and order dated December 17, 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1589 of 2018 and 7393 of 2017. The appeals relate to the case of Shahin Parveen, who was admitted to the District Hospital with 80% deep thermal and facial burns on 1st December 2016. She claimed that she was set ablaze by the accused/appellants who pressured her into entering the profession of immoral trafficking and prostitution. A First Information Report was registered at Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad, and Shahin was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where she died at 7:55 pm. The case was altered to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution case alleged that after the death of Shahin’s husband two years prior, the accused/appellants began pressuring her into entering the profession of immoral trafficking and prostitution. The accused/appellants caught hold of Shahin and poured kerosene on her, igniting a matchstick and throwing it at her. The accused/appellants surrounded her, and she was set ablaze. Her neighbours put out the fire, and her mother and brother, Islam @ Babli, took her to the hospital.

The deceased, who had been a victim of a dispute with her husband, was allegedly set on fire by two accused individuals. The incident occurred on December 1, 2016, and the deceased’s dying declaration revealed that the dispute was related to their shared residence. The accused poured kerosene on the deceased, who was later taken to a hospital in New Delhi. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, with Papi @ Mashkoor claiming he was absent at the time and the deceased committed suicide. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

  1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860;

● Section-34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

● Section 302 (Punishment for Murder): Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.

● Section-307 (Attempt to murder): Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

● Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

  1. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872;

● Section 32(1) [ Dying Declaration]: This section states that when a statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

ISSUES RAISED:

  1. Whether the dying declaration is cogent, trustworthy, and reliable to base the conviction on the accused or frivolous and vexatious.
  2. Whether the dying declaration can be considered as sole evidence for the conviction of the accused persons.
  3. whether the conviction of all three accused is tenable or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Shri Mohd. Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the conviction is based only on the dying declaration of the deceased. He submits that the dying declaration is not free from doubt. It is submitted that the discharge slip would show that the deceased was discharged from the District Hospital, Moradabad, on December 1, 2016 at 5:00 pm. It is therefore impossible that the dying declaration could have been recorded between 8:48 pm and 9:15 pm. The learned counsel therefore submits that the said dying declaration cannot be said to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent so as to base the conviction solely on the same.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS:

Shri Thakur, counsel for the respondent, submits that both the trial court and the High Court, on the correct appreciation of evidence, rightly convicted the accused and appellants, and as such, no interference would be warranted with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. The learned AAG submits that Raj Kumar Bhaskar, the then Naib Tehsildar, has deposed about the dying declaration. Shri Thakur submits that the dying declaration also contains the certification by Dr. A.K. Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Moradabad, regarding the medical fitness of the victim both prior to and after recording the dying declaration.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The conviction in this case is based solely on the dying declaration, as per the law outlined in the Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi case. The court has held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court, and if the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement, it was not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination. If the court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without further corroboration. The court has observed that if the dying declaration is true, coherent, and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement, there is no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.

The testimony of Raj Kumar Bhaskar, the then Naib Tehsildar, reveals that he was directed by the Tehsildar to record the statement of the victim, Shahin Parveen, at the District Hospital, Moradabad. He deposed that he was in full sense and understood the questions, and that none of the relatives of the deceased were present during the recording.

 

The dying declaration is deemed true and coherent, making it a reliable basis for conviction without independent corroboration. The victim’s statement reveals that the deceased’s motive is attributed to accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor, who allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The statement of Naeema and her brother Naeem, the wife of accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor, also reveals their assistance to her devar Pappi @ Mashkoor.

 

However, no specific role for how they assisted was found in the dying declaration. The court finds that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for maintaining the conviction of accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor, but in the absence of any specific role attributed to accused No. 2 Naeema and accused No. 3 Naeem, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

As a result, the court passed the following order:

(i) The criminal appeals of Naeem and Naeema, quashed and set aside, are allowed. The trial court’s conviction and sentence from October 24, 2017, and the High Court’s judgement from December 17, 2019, are quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges and are directed to be released immediately, unless required in any other case.

(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1979 of 2022, qua appellant Pappi @ Mashkoor, is dismissed.

“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 falls 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.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Abhishek Singh

Click here to view the full judgement: NAEEM. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

 

0

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in Landmark Criminal Appeal

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Name: Dinesh Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and Rajesh Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.564 of 2023

Date of Judgment: January 11, 2024

Quorum of the Case: The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 29.07.2018, Karan Gambhir filed a complaint leading to an FIR. The complaint listed DD Global’s address inaccurately in Noida, although its registered office was in New Delhi. The intent was to falsely establish jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar. The addresses of accused Rajesh Gupta, Dinesh Gupta, and associated companies were misleadingly listed in Gautam Budh Nagar, while their actual addresses were in New Delhi. The true addresses of the accused were revealed during the charge-sheet filing, confirming the complainant’s intent to create false jurisdiction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons without proper verification of addresses or business locations, showing a lack of due diligence. The complainant claimed to be misled into converting a loan into equity. However, board resolutions from 2011 demonstrated that this was a deliberate decision by the complainant’s company, undermining claims of inducement. The complainant concealed knowledge of the merger between Gulab Buildtech, Verma Buildtech, and BDR Builders, approved by the High Court in 2013. An attempt to recall the merger was dismissed in 2016, which was not  The FIR was registered years after the complainant became aware of the merger and its dismissal, indicating a delay in pursuing the case. The Delhi High Court had appointed an Arbitrator in 2019 to resolve the dispute, which was still pending. The court found the FIR to be malicious prosecution and quashed it, citing an abuse of the judicial process. Karan Gambhir was ordered to pay costs of ₹25 lakhs within four weeks for the benefit of SCBA and SCAORA members.

ISSUES

  • Whether the Complaint Established False Jurisdiction
  • Whether the Allegations of Inducement into Loan Conversion were Valid
  • Whether there was Concealment of Material Facts by the Complainant

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

  • Section 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property): This section was central to the complainant’s allegations that the accused had induced the complainant to advance a loan by deceitful means. The court ultimately found no evidence of cheating as the decisions were made through company resolutions.
  • Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust): Allegations were made against the accused for breach of trust in handling the complainant’s investments. The court found these allegations to be unsubstantiated, determining that the dispute was commercial rather than criminal in nature.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

  • Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court): This provision allows the High Court to quash FIRs to prevent abuse of the court process. The court invoked this section to quash the FIR, concluding that the complaint was malicious and an abuse of the legal system.
  • Companies Act, 1956 and 2013:
  • Provisions related to Company Resolutions and Mergers: The case scrutinized the company resolutions regarding the investments and the legal procedures followed during the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR Builders. These provisions helped demonstrate the commercial nature of the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants contended that the FIR was registered based on misleading statements by the complainant. The addresses provided for the company and the accused individuals were deliberately incorrect, falsely indicating they were based in Noida to create jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar, which was not applicable. The actual business addresses and residences of the accused were in New Delhi, not Noida. This misrepresentation was argued to be a deliberate attempt to manipulate jurisdiction. The appellants argued that the transaction in question was purely commercial, not criminal. They provided evidence in the form of company resolutions dated 25.03.2011 and 26.08.2011, showing that the complainant had knowingly decided to invest in the equity of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech. This decision was documented and undisputed, contradicting the claim that the appellants had induced the complainant to advance a loan that was later converted into equity. The appellants emphasized that this was a business decision taken by the complainant’s board, not a case of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The appellants contended that the complainant had concealed critical information from the court. This included the complainant’s prior knowledge of the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR, which had been legally processed and approved by the High Court. The complainant had neither raised objections during the merger proceedings nor disclosed the filing and dismissal of an application for the recall of the merger order. The appellants argued that these omissions were intentional, aimed at giving a criminal color to what was essentially a commercial dispute. This concealment was presented as evidence of the complainant’s malicious intent and abuse of the judicial process. The appellants highlighted the significant delay in filing the FIR—more than eight years after the initial loan transaction and over two years after the dismissal of the application for recall of the merger order. This delay, coupled with the complainant’s knowledge of the merger and the commercial nature of the dispute, was argued to indicate malicious intent. The appellants contended that the complainant had waited for an opportune moment to initiate false and frivolous litigation, further demonstrating abuse of the legal system.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent argued that the appellants were attempting to evade jurisdiction by falsely claiming their addresses were in New Delhi when their businesses were allegedly operating out of Noida. The complainant’s FIR was filed based on information that the companies were located in Noida, which was consistent with their registration documents and the addresses provided for service of process. This misrepresentation of address and jurisdiction was crucial for filing the case in Gautam Budh Nagar. The respondent contended that the investments made by the complainant were originally loans, not equity. The appellants reportedly induced the complainant into providing loans, which they later converted into equity without proper authorization. This conversion, according to the respondent, constituted criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the appellants used forged documents to appropriate the complainant’s shares in the merged companies. The respondent argued that the appellants deliberately concealed material facts from the court, such as their knowledge of the merger and the complainant’s status as a major shareholder. The appellants allegedly did not disclose the process of merger adequately, which led to the complainant’s loss of shares. The complainant filed the FIR only after discovering the fraudulent activities and non-disclosures by the appellants, which undermined the integrity of the legal process.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court critically examined the jurisdictional aspects raised by both parties. It noted discrepancies in the addresses provided in the FIR versus the actual registered addresses of the companies involved. The court found that the complainant had misrepresented the jurisdiction by stating the companies were based in Noida when their registered offices were in New Delhi. This misrepresentation was deemed deliberate, aiming to falsely establish jurisdiction in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The court analyzed the nature of the transactions between the parties. It considered the complainant’s contention that the investments were initially loans and were later converted into equity without proper authorization. The court reviewed documentary evidence, including resolutions passed by the companies involved, which indicated that the conversion was a legitimate business decision rather than a fraudulent act as alleged by the complainant.

Addressing the criminal allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. It emphasized that the investments made by the complainant were based on resolutions passed by the companies, which were not disputed. The court also noted that the complainant failed to timely pursue legal remedies after becoming aware of the alleged wrongdoing, waiting several years before filing the FIR.  Regarding the allegations of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by the appellants, the court observed that the complainant had knowledge of the merger of Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR Builders but did not raise objections during the merger process. The court criticized the complainant for not disclosing these crucial details in the FIR, highlighting a lack of transparency and full disclosure.

Concluding on the abuse of legal process, the court found that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were malicious and aimed at harassing the appellants. It noted that the complainant’s actions undermined the trust in judicial processes and imposed unnecessary burdens on the appellants. Therefore, the court concluded that the FIR was an abuse of the legal system and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. As a deterrent measure, the court imposed costs of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent for misusing the legal system and initiating frivolous litigation. The costs were directed to be deposited with the court and subsequently utilized for the development and benefit of legal associations.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Supreme Court Upholds Reasoned Legal Standards in Acquittal Reversals

blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Name: Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Date of Judgment: April 19, 2024

Quorum: Mehta, J

 FACTS OF THR CASE

The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of individuals accused of murdering Malagounda on September 19, 2001. The complainant, Malagounda’s father, claimed to witness the murder along with several servants. Despite multiple alleged eyewitnesses, only Malagounda was injured. The complainant reported the incident at 4 am, but inconsistencies and contradictions arose in witness testimonies. Notably, PW-6 stated the complainant was not present during the attack, contradicting the complainant’s account. Doubts surfaced due to the lack of injuries to other witnesses and discrepancies about where the complaint was lodged. The Medical Jurist’s testimony suggested the death occurred more than 24 hours before the autopsy, conflicting with the reported time of death. Furthermore, heavy rainfall in the area raised questions about the plausibility of the victim being in the field. The defense highlighted a previous murder involving the deceased’s family as a potential motive for false allegations. The High Court’s reliance on weapon recoveries based on accused’s disclosures was deemed inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellate court found the trial court’s acquittal justified, noting the High Court improperly interfered without sufficient grounds, affirming the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the Accused Were Rightly Acquitted by the Trial Court.
  2. Whether the High Court Was Justified in Reversing the Acquittal.
  3. Whether the Weapon Recoveries Were Admissible and Valid.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
  • Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, in their defense, put forth several contentions challenging the lower court’s decision. Firstly, they argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were responsible for the murder of the deceased. They contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial and did not conclusively prove their guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of key witnesses, which they asserted cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. Secondly, the appellants challenged the admissibility of certain statements and evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They argued that the statements made by the appellants during police custody were coerced and not voluntary. They further contended that the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the commission of the crime was not supported by independent witnesses or corroborative evidence, thereby raising doubts about its legality and authenticity. Thirdly, the appellants raised procedural irregularities during the investigation and trial stages. They asserted that their rights under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were violated during the recording of statements and confessions. They alleged that the police did not follow proper procedures, leading to inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements recorded, which undermined the reliability of the evidence presented against them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, presented several contentions in defense of the lower court’s decision. Firstly, they argued that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. They emphasized that the circumstantial evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, collectively pointed to the culpability of the appellants in committing the murder of the deceased and attempting to murder another individual. Secondly, the respondent contested the appellants’ claim regarding the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They asserted that the statements made by the appellants during police custody were voluntary and led to the recovery of crucial evidence, such as weapons used in the crime. They argued that these statements were pivotal in connecting the appellants to the commission of the offense and were obtained in accordance with legal procedures. Thirdly, the respondent refuted the appellants’ allegations of procedural irregularities during the investigation and trial. They contended that the investigation was conducted diligently and in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). They maintained that any discrepancies or inconsistencies in witness statements were minor and did not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellate court began by emphasizing the stringent standard of review in appeals against acquittals. It underscored the dual presumption of innocence benefiting the accused post-acquittal, grounded in the foundational principle of criminal law. The court highlighted the necessity for the appellate tribunal to meticulously reassess both oral and documentary evidence, emphasizing that it should only overturn a lower court’s acquittal if convinced beyond doubt of the accused’s guilt. The court enumerated the grounds justifying the reversal of an acquittal: manifest perversity in the judgment, a lack of scrutiny of essential evidence, or the irrefutably exclusive existence of evidence compellingly supporting the accused’s guilt. It then systematically scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution, identifying contradictions, implausibilities, and discrepancies that cast doubt on its credibility. Moreover, the court scrutinized the evidence provided by the prosecution. It found several inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, the complainant’s presence at the crime scene contradicted the statements of witnesses. Additionally, the timing of the incident was questioned based on the medical evidence presented. There was also a lack of important documents such as the Daily Diary of the police station, which undermined the FIR’s credibility. Furthermore, there were questions about the process of recovering weapons by the investigating officer, which raised doubts about their admissibility as evidence.

In conclusion, after a thorough review of the evidence and consideration of the principles guiding appeals against acquittals, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. It observed that the trial court’s judgment was reasonable and well-founded, devoid of any apparent defects or perversions. As a result, the appellate court concluded that the High Court’s decision to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused was not justified. It overturned the High Court’s judgment and acquitted the accused of all charges. The court also stated that the accused appellants were on bail and did not need to surrender. Consequently, their bail bonds were released. This judgment underscored the critical need for caution and scrutiny in appellate review of acquittals, reinforcing the presumption of innocence and demanding substantial and compelling evidence to overturn a lower court’s decision.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Burning topic: SC had ordered Neet re-exam on 24th June

Uncategorized , , , ,

On June 24th, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant order mandating a re-examination of the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test), a crucial examination for admission into undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses across the country. This decision came amidst mounting concerns and allegations of irregularities during the conduct of the exam, highlighting the Court’s proactive stance in upholding fairness and transparency in educational assessments.

NEET serves as a gateway for thousands of aspiring medical and dental students annually, determining their admission to prestigious institutions based on merit. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of such high-stakes examinations, ensuring that all candidates have a level playing field.

The order for a re-examination is a response to various issues raised regarding the administration and conduct of the exam. These concerns include reports of question paper leaks, discrepancies in exam centers, and allegations of malpractice. Such incidents not only undermine the trust in the examination process but also raise doubts about the fairness with which candidates are evaluated for their academic prowess.

For the students who had already appeared for the previous NEET exam, the Court’s decision means uncertainty and additional preparation. It necessitates that these students invest more time and effort to perform well in the upcoming re-exam, thereby impacting their academic timelines and aspirations.

Moreover, the re-examination directive has broader implications for the education sector and its stakeholders. It prompts discussions among policymakers, educational institutions, and regulatory bodies about enhancing the security measures and protocols for conducting examinations of national importance. It underscores the need for stringent measures to prevent leaks, maintain the confidentiality of question papers, and ensure the smooth conduct of exams across multiple centers nationwide.

The Supreme Court’s proactive approach in ordering a re-exam reflects its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in educational assessments. By intervening in matters concerning the conduct of NEET, the Court asserts its role in safeguarding the interests of students and maintaining the credibility of the examination system.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court’s decision to order a NEET re-exam on June 24th aims to address concerns over alleged irregularities, it also highlights the challenges and complexities involved in conducting large-scale examinations in a fair and transparent manner. It calls for collective efforts from all stakeholders to strengthen the examination process, restore trust among candidates, and ensure that meritocracy remains the guiding principle in admissions to medical and dental colleges in India.

“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.”

News Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

1 2 3 4 … 18