# Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Archives

31 Oct

In an NDPS case, the High Court has granted bail owing to a 10-gram discrepancy in the inventory of seized charas: Bombay High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Writ Petition, #appeal, #dismissed, #writ, Prime Legal

Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra

Decided on: OCTOBER 23, 2023

Writ C No. – Bail Application NO. 1450 OF 2023

CORAM: M. S. Karnik, J

INTRODUCTION

Sunil Shishupal Nayak requested bail in this case in order to face charges under sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. There was a discrepancy in Charas possession in this case. The applicant claimed that drying caused a weight change after being arrested with one kilogram and ten grams of Charas. The NDPS Act’s provisions and the significance of the weight disparity were the deciding factors in the court’s decision regarding the bail application.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a case filed on April 16, 2022, Sunil Shishupal Nayak was charged under the NDPS Act for having a large quantity of “Charas.” A weight disparity surfaced during the legal proceedings; at first, Nayak was discovered in possession of 1 kg and 10 grams of Charas, which were deemed to be commercial quantities; however, the recorded weight was only 1 kg following a 59-day drying period. The charges and penalties in the case were contingent upon Charas’s legal classification. Nayak requested bail, which would have affected his freedom to stand trial.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court granted bail to Sunil Shishupal Nayak, who was charged under the NDPS Act in connection with a “Charas” possession case involving a weight discrepancy, was granted bail by the court. The court declined to make any pretrial rulings, emphasizing that matters pertaining to the weight of the contraband should be resolved during the trial. The results of the investigation, Nayak’s prolonged detention, and his lack of previous criminal history all played a role in the decision. Conditions attached to bail were put in place to make sure he cooperated with the court system.

“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- Kusuma R

Bombay Hc

27 Oct

The Calcutta High Court refused to quash legal proceedings against a tour operator accused of misusing booking funds, citing evidence of potential criminal breach of trust

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, #compensation, #Jurisdiction, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: Ashish Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Decided on: 19^th, October 2023

Writ C No. – CRR 197 of 2023

CORAM: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee.

INTRODUCTION

In this case Ashish Kumar attempted to have criminal charges brought under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code set aside. Dr. Swapnil Jaiswal filed a complaint at the start of the case alleging that Ashish Kumar had defaulted on payment for a tour package.

Ashish’s request was denied by the court, which decided that more research and a trial were necessary because the charges suggested possible offenses. This case highlights the necessity of differentiating between civil and criminal cases as well as establishing a sufficient basis for filing criminal charges.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A group of travellers made a reservation for a tour package with Ashish Kumar, who is said to have taken money but failed to pay hotel owners and taxi drivers. Ashish was the subject of a criminal complaint brought under IPC Sections 406 and 420. Ashish’s request to have the case dismissed was denied, so the court case could go forward.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The case of Ashish Kumar, who was accused of taking money for a tour package but not paying hotel owners and taxi drivers as agreed, was examined by the court. The court determined that the accusations of cheating and breach of trust could be crimes if they were to be believed at face value. Consequently, it denied Ashish Kumar’s application to stop the proceedings, enabling the legal matter to continue.

Written by- Kusuma R

Calcutta Hc 2

11 Oct

To prove undervaluation in customs duty cases, the Supreme Court requires evidence of contemporaneous import prices, or else the benefit of the doubt favors the importer.

Prime Legal

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, #appeal, #arbitration, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr

Decided on: 06 October,2023

Neutral Citation: 2023INSC881

CORAM : B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas” revolves around allegations of under-invoicing of imported goods from Hong Kong and the subsequent imposition of penalties by Customs authorities in India. The Supreme Court examined the rejection of invoice prices, the burden of proof in under-valuation cases, and the reliance on foreign export declarations.

The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to set aside the penalties and value enhancements, setting a precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case where under-invoicing imported goods from Hong Kong, potentially evading customs duty. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Customs Commissioner imposed penalties.

The central issue was the rejection of the invoice price and the burden of proof for under-valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules were essential in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties, emphasizing the need for solid reasons and evidence for rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes.

This case established a significant precedent for customs valuation rules and the burden of proof in similar cases.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court emphasized that the Customs department must provide solid reasons and evidence when rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes. The burden of proof for under-valuation lies with the department, and detailed inquiries and adequate evidence are required to allege under-valuation.

The Court noted that both the department and the adjudicating authority had not justified the rejection of the import invoice price as incorrect and the subsequent enhancement of the price. As a result, the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties and value enhancements was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Customs Commissioner were dismissed. This case established a significant precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

Written by- Kusuma R

11 Oct

The Allahabad High Court criticized the National Minorities Commission for overstepping its authority and summoning officers without valid grounds.

Prime Legal

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others 2023

Decided on: 26^th September, 2023

Writ no. – C No. – 30476 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others” in 2023 involves a dispute where a church-owned property in Uttar Pradesh, India, had been illegally occupied.

The petitioners, a Christian organization, sought legal action through the U.P. Commission for Minorities and later the National Commission for Minorities. The case primarily focuses on whether these commissions had the authority to adjudicate and order actions related to the property dispute and whether their actions exceeded their statutory jurisdiction.

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, an NGO associated with a church, claimed ownership of property including Shop no. 13/1.They sought to evict an unauthorized occupant from Shop no. 13/1. The U.P. Commission for Minorities treated the case as a civil matter and ordered an FIR against the occupant.

The National Commission for Minorities got involved, issuing orders to assist the petitioners. The dispute centered on whether these commissions had the authority to handle the property dispute, leading to a legal challenge. The Allahabad High Court ultimately ruled that the commissions had exceeded their jurisdiction in this case.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court highlighted the limited statutory functions of these commissions, primarily aimed at safeguarding minority interests. Emphasized that these commissions do not possess the authority to adjudicate property disputes.

Criticized the practice of summoning government officers and pressuring them to pass orders beyond their jurisdiction. Reiterated that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. Deplored the commissions’ tendency to function as if they were courts, calling it an abuse of their position. Noted that such actions could result in the removal of commission members. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and affirmed that the commissions had acted beyond their authorized functions in the property dispute, underscoring the importance of respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.

Written by- Kusuma R

6 Sep

Madras High Court grants Statutory bail and Says accused has the right to be released in a NDPS case.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, #MadrasHighCourt, #Right to release, #Statutorybail

TITLE. Vimala Devi Vs. State by The Inspector of Police

Decided On: September 5, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.20387 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Facts:

The petitioner filed an Petition to direct the learned Special Judge for EC/NDPS Act cases at Salem to accept the statutory bail petition u/s.167(2) Cr.P.C. of this petitioner. The First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner for offence u/s.8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.06.2023. The petitioner filed a petition u/s.167(2) Cr.P.C. on the 71st day i.e. on 24.08.2023. The Court below refused to entertain this petition on the ground that the statutory period has not come to an end.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The offence for which the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner is punishable for a term, which may extend to 10 years. The Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [2017 (3) MWN (Crl.) 1] has categorically held that an offence punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 10 years alone is covered under 90 days
and the punishment that may extend to 10 years will fall under the category of 60 days. In view of the same, the present case where the punishment extends up to 10 years, the final report ought to have been filed within a period of 60 days. Admittedly, the final report was not filed within 60 days and it was filed only after the petitioner had filed petition u/s.167(2) Cr.P.C. In view of the same, the Court below ought to have entertained the petition since the petitioner has the right to be released on statutory bail.

The Statutory bail was granted by imposing the following conditions:

The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees TenThousand only] with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for EC/NDPS Act cases at Salem.
The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30
m. until further orders.
On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself
If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 229A IPC.

Conclusion:

The court granted the statutory bail to the petitioner after considering the various precedents of the apex court and also by imposing few conditions on the petitioner the bail was granted to the petitioner.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click the link below to read more.

1 2 3