Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: August 12 – August 16, 2024
1) Jostling & pushing by accused with an attempt to wriggle out was not with any intention to assault or use criminal force: SC sets aside concurrent conviction u/s 353 IPC
The Court acquitted a man who was concurrently convicted for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court said that there is no evidence to indicate that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the trap party in execution of their duties or for the purpose of preventing or deterring them in discharging their duties.
Cause Title- Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 600)
Date of Judgment- August 12, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
2) “Bail is rule & jail is an exception” principle can be applied with a modification even if statutes impose stringent conditions for grant of bail
The Court observed that the principle "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” can be applied with a modification even in cases where statutes impose stringent conditions for granting bail.
The modification is that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied, the court said. The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed by the accused being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Cause Title- Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 604)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
3) "We find that Popular Front of India (PFI) is not a terrorist organisation": Supreme Court while granting bail to UAPA accused
The Court while granting bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) observed that the Popular Front of India (PFI) is not a 'terrorist organisation'.
The Court noted that a 'terrorist organisation' in UAPA means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. It was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the UAPA.
Cause Title- Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 604)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
4) Supreme Court closes contempt case against Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna in Patanjali misleading advertisement case
The Court discharged the Contempt Notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case.
While closing the contempt proceedings against the duo, the Court said that it is accepting the unconditional apology tendered by them. The Court also warned them not to violate Court's orders in future. Pertinently, on May 14, the Bench had reserved order in the contempt case. On April 23, the Bench had raised concerns about the size of the public apology published by Patanjali. Thereafter, the Ayurved company had again issued a larger public apology.
Cause Title- In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited, through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, Baba Ramdev v. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 605)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
5) Mere denial of averments in affidavit does not attract offence of perjury when there is no malafide intention or deliberate attempt
The Court held that mere denial of averments in the affidavit does not constitute the offence of perjury under Section 193 of the IPC when no malafide intention or deliberate intention can be found.
In this case, an FIR was lodged against the accused under Sections 376 and 504 of the IPC. The complainant had accused him of establishing relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. Following his arrest, the accused applied for bail, which the trial court initially denied, however, the High Court later granted him bail.
Cause Title- James Kunjwal v. State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 601)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2024
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
6) Closing bank account within a few weeks of issuance of cheque raises serious questions about conduct & intent of accused: SC upholds conviction in cheque bounce case
The Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while observing that the closure of the bank accounts within a few weeks of issuance of the cheque raises serious questions about the conduct and intent of the accused.
The Court said that when an accused had not disputed that he had handed over the cheques or signed them, it was incumbent upon the said accused to either take back a cheque or instruct the bank to not honour the concerned cheque the moment he claims the amount(s) were repaid.
Cause Title- Sri Sujies Benefit Funds Limited v. M. Jaganathuan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 602)
Date of Judgment- August 13, 2024
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
7) Supreme Court explains doctrine of prospective overruling in its order allowing tax dues on minerals from April 2005 onwards
The Court explained the Doctrine of prospective overruling in its order which clarified that the ruling of July 25, 2024 that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central Government is not a tax will not have only prospective effect.
The Bench said that the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied when a constitutional court overrules a well-established precedent by declaring a new rule but limits its application to future situations and the underlying objective is to avert injustice or hardships.
Cause Title- Mineral Area Development Authority Etc. v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 607)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2024
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Augustine George Masih
8) Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules| Rule of stepping up shall apply only if conditions specified are fulfilled
The Court observed that the Rule of stepping up shall apply only if the conditions specified are fulfilled.
The Court observed thus in a batch of civil appeals challenging the common order of the Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench by which it set aside the order of the Single Judge directing to remove the anomaly in the pay of persons qua their juniors by stepping up their pay.
Cause Title- Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 608)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
9) It’s natural for young man to be emotionally upset to see sister ill-treated by in-laws: SC modifies S. 304 IPC sentence to period already undergone
The Court modified the sentence of an accused under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to period already undergone by him.
The Court took note of the fact that it is natural for a young man to be emotionally upset to see his sister allegedly ill-treated by her in-laws.
Cause Title- Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 609)
Date of Judgment- August 14, 2024
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
