evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 255

JOGINDER @ JINDI A

STATE OF HARYANA (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6346 of 2008)

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 438 - Grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - c HELD: A petition u/s 438 in respect of bailable offences is misconceived even if it is accepted that alleged offences are bailable - High Court was not justified that custodial interrogation was necessary- However, if petitioner surrenders

--! and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered D uninfluenced by any observations made by High Court.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6346 of 2008

From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2008 of E

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. M-20367 of 2008

Ranjit Kumar, Subodh Kumar Pathak, Shashi Ranjan, 8.

Pattanaik and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Appellant.

The following Order of the was delivered

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

Since the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are G bailable offences, the High Court was not justified in holding that custodial interrogation was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C. in terms relates to non-bailable offences. Therefore, a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to bailable offences is

255 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2008] 13 S.C.R.

A mis-conceived, even if it is acceptad that alleged offences are

bailable. However, if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

B R.P.

Special Leave Petition disposed of.
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 943

MIS. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A v.

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX (Civil Appeal No. 5313 of 2008)

AUGUST 25, 2008 8

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM . -~

SHARMA, JJ.]

. Income Tax Act, 1961 - s. 263 - Proceedings under - Disposed of by Assessing Officer dropping the penalty c proceedings - Tribunal holding that initiation of the proceedings were impermissible in the background of the materials placed by the assessee - High Court remanding the matter to Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order - On appeal, held: Appeal does not warrant interference at this stage D

- Assessing Officer is required to take into account all the relevant aspects and materials and pass reasoned order.

-;.

CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 5313 of 2008

From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.04.2008 of E

the High of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 166 of 2007

Soli J. Sorabjee, Sanjay Kochar, Sampath, S. Anant, Krishan Mahajan, Lakshmi Iyengar and Sandhya Goswami for the Appellant.

) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court has held that th~ Assessing 943 H

Ii- 944

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty

,.___

proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According ,_

to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and B held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the r Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the l.T.Act) was impermissible when considered in the background of the materials purportedly ~-- placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. What the High Court has done is to require the Assessing Officer to pass c a reasoned order. The High Court was of the view that Tribunal could not have substituted its own reasonings which were required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer. According to the assessee all relevant aspects were placed for consideration and if the officer did not record reasons, assessee can not be

D faulted.

We do not think it necessary to interfere at this stage. It goes without saying that when the matter be taken up by the Assessing Officer on remand, it shall be his duty to take into 1account all the relevant aspects including the materials, if any, E already placed by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order.

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid obseivations.

K.K.T.

Appeal dismissed. , '
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 133

"'" A

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v.

M/S. KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6457-58 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 03, 2008 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

--<

SHARMA, JJ.]

Practice and procedure - Interim matters - Adjudication of - Categorical finding on merits by High Court - Propriety c of - Held: Not proper - It was not the stage of doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of writ petition - Thus, order of High Court set aside - High Court to hear the matters afresh - Constitution of India, Article 226.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.

D ).. 6457-6458 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13914 of 2008 and COCP No. 1536 E of 2008 in CWP No. 13914 of 2008.

Gopal Subrama.nium, A.S.G., Harish Chandra, Rahul

Kaushik, Ameet Chander and Anil Katiyar for the Appellants.

-~ Mukul Rohtagi, S. Ganesh, Reetesh Singh. Janvi Wora, F Pranav Vyas and Surya Kant for the Respondents . ....-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .,.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.

2. Though these matters were listed for admission, G

learned counsel for the parties requested the matters to be taken up for final disposal. •

3. Leave granted. 133 H


4. We find that while adjudicating an interim matter, the High Court has given a categorical finding on merits holding inter-alia that there is nothing to show that even prima facie, goods are liable to confiscation. The High Court appears to have decided the matter on merits finally even though that was B not the stage for doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition. This is not the way the High Court should have dealt with the matter. Apart from that, the High Court has not indicated any reason as to why the condition of execution of indemnity bond equivalent to seizure value of c goods and/or furnishing of bank guarantee equal to 10% of

value of goods, as was stipulated by the authorities, was not justified. This also adds to the vulnerability of the order. We set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. Let the High Court hear the matters afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, let

0 the pqrties appear before the High Court, without further notice, on 1i11.2008.

5. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matters, i.e. CWP No.13914/2008 and COCP No.1536/2008 to an appropriate Bench.

6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

N.J.

Appeals disposed of.
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 307 \

GOVERDHAN DASS BANSAL A v. ,.

STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) TH. SECRETARY

(Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002.)

OCTOBER 22, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER, LOKESHWAR

SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

~ Practice and procedure - Revision - Disposal of, on the t

day of admission by cryptic and non-reasoned order - c Propriety of - Held: Not proper- Since the court felt that there was some arguable points, the revision petition was admitted

- If there was no substance, it should not have been admitted

- Thus, order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back to it for fresh disposal - Judgment/Order - Revision - D Food Adulteration Act, 1948.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.4.2001 of the E High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2001.

Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Prasanth P. and T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant.

F r-

Ashok Bhan, Ahsa G. Nair, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal

307 H
VISHWAMBHAR NARAYAN JADHAV v. MALLAPPA 1071

SANGRAMAPPA MALLIPATIL & ANR.

ORDER A

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I s

3. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

-;. i judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th April, 2007 in Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2007.

4. The facts of the prosecution case are mentioned in the C!

FIR dated 25th January, 2002, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that while the appellant was on a bus, respondent No.1 .entered the bus and came to the seat of the appellant and said that you always harassed my uncle and he started abusing D the appellant. Respondent No.1 then took a bottle of acid from

~- his pocket and poured the acid on the head of the appellant • with the result that the face, neck, eyes, chest etc. of the appellant were seriously burnt. Appellant was then taken to the hospital where he was given medical treatment. We have seen E the photographs showing serious bum injuries on the head, face and chest of the appellant.

5. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 06th October, 2004, found respondent No.1 guilty under Section 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with F

-~ a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his G judgment dated 13th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and ... ) sentence awarded by the trial Court .

7. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.1 filed a Criminal Revision Applrcation No.183/2007 before the Bombay

I High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

A reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but the ~- fine was increased to Rs. 20,000/-.

8. We are surprised that the High Court has, in such a heinous crime, chosen to reduce the punishment to the

'B sentence already undergone which we are informed was only 35 days. In our opinion, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. and the first appellate court. Respondent No.1 appears to be a person r- -#"

who has criminal inclinations and no leniency is called for for c such. persons, otherwise people will not be able to go around in life in peace.

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court an~ first (lppellate_ court. Respondent No.1 be taken into custody forthwith to serve D out his remaining part of sentence.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.

....

...... .
. [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1073

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION A

~ v.

MOOL CHAND (Civil Appeal No. 7258 of 2002)

DECEMBER 2, 2008 B

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND AFT AB ALAM, JJ.] ,. i

Service Law:

Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Providing that c employees opting for the Scheme would not be entitled to pensiqn - High Court holding that the employee would get pension in addition to VRS benefits - HELD: Judgment of High Court is erroneous and is set aside.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

7258 of 2002.

)-- From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court )

of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 62 of 2001.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302 of 2007.

S.B. Sanyal, A. Subhashini, Sunil Dalal, Jay Kishore Singh (for Subramonium Prasad), B.D. Sharma, Naresh Kaushik and p Arnita Kalkal (for Lalita Kaushik) for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

.......... ,'-* judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter

1073 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A referred to as the 'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a f. provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme:

2. Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme

8 dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.

3. Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court C has held that the respondent will get pension in addition-to VRS

benefits.

4. In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.

5. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007. passed in Special Leave Petition(C)No.4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed.

We order accordingly.

F R.P.

Appeals disposed of .

.J,.
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 124

MUBARIK KHAN ~-- ) v.

NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS. t(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002)

OCTOBER 1,, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.] ,....._

Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against c acquittal by High Court - Scope of interference - High Court acquitted the accused on grounds that the evidence of sole eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch of FIR to Magistrate - Held: View taken by High Court was a possible view - Hence, interference not called for.

D The High Court directed acquittal of the accused on grounds that the evidence of the sole eyewitness was \ unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch f· of FIR to the Magistrate. Hence the instant appeals.

E Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. [Para 1] [125-C, D]

F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ,.

No. 612 of 2002

>i~

From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal

G Appeal No. 495 of 1996

WITH

~ Crl. No. 1105 of 2002

Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala, H 124

MUBARIK KHAN v. NABABKHA@ NAWAB 125

AND ORS.

Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for A the Appearing Parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a B case where any interference is called for. The High Court has found that the evidence of PW5, who was stated to be the sole eye-witness, unreliable. Apart from that there is considerable delay in dispatch of the first information report to the court.

Though in all cases that may not be the determinative factor, but c when considered with other aspects that assumes importance.

The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail. The view taken by the High Court is 9 possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for 0 interference.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:

3. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/ E 2002, this appeal is also dismissed.

B.B.B.

Appeals dismissed.
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 51

--\

STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

A v.

PROF. D. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5907 of 2008)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.)

Precedent - Writ petition - Allowed by Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court - State placing reliance c on judgment of Supreme Court in an identical matter - Remitted to Division Bench o High Court to decide the issue on the basis of the decided cases in identical matters.

State of Kera/a v. P V Neelakandan 2005 (5) SCC 561 - relied on.

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5907 of 2008

From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2005 of the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1432 of 2005 E

WITH

C.A. No. 5908 of 2008

'-.; T.L.V. Iyer, G. Prakash and Beena Prakash for the Appel- F Ian ts.

P.K. Manhohar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State. Before the High Court it was contended that the decision of the full Bench of the High Court in Accountant Gen-

51 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A era/ v. Kunjamma [2003 (3) KLT 345] relied on by learned

I-·

Single Judge was in appeal before this Court and an order of stay of the said Court had been passed. But, the High Court was of the view that in view of the decision of the Full Bench the writ appeal was without merit.

3. It is submitted that the High Court's judgment is dated 19.7.2005, while the identical issue came up for consideration in State of Kera/a v. PV Neelakandan [2005(5) SCC 561], which was decided on 11.7.2005.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed in C.A. No. 2907 of 2005 decided on 22.2.2007 has also relevance.

5. We are of the view that the case at hand needs to be decided in line with what has been stated in P V Neelakandan's D case (supra) and in C.A. 2907 of 2005. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the matter afresh and decide the writ appeal in the light of what has been stated by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions .

E . 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

K.K.T.

Appeals disposed of.
(2008] 14 S.C.R. 520

SAIRA@RUHI r

II.

ATHAR ABBAS (Transfer Petition (C) No. 25 of 2008)

OCTOBER 16, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.] t--

Settlement - Transfer Petition - Matrimonial case - Heard - c by Supreme Court Lok Ada/at - Parties agreeing to settle the dispute on certain terms - Parties agreeing to withdraw the respective civil/criminal cases filed by them and to appear before Mediation Centre for counseling - Thus TP disposed of

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (C) No. 25 of 2008

...

Rukshana Choudhary and Indira Unninayer for the Appellant.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Though the present transfer

":.: .... ·

petition has been filed for transfer of a case, the matter was directed to be listed at the Supreme Court Lok Adalat wt\lth was held on 5th September, 2008. With the assistance m tlie

F Mediators, the parties were heard and following terms for settling the disputes were arrived at:

Parties have agreed to withdraw their respective complaints and suits.

G 2.

Parties have been living together since 1. 7 .2008.

Parties agree that they need counselling to avoid violence which will be provided by Delhi High Court ,\-

Mediation Centre. They agree to appear before the

H 520

SAIRA@ RUHi v. A THAR ABBAS

[DR. ARIJIT PA$AYAT, J.] 521

Delhi High Court Mediation Centre on a date fixed A by this Hon'ble Court.

In order that parties have more confidence in each other, the parties desire that FIR No.404 of 2007, P.S. Geeta Colony, pending in the Court of Ms. Neerja 8 Bhatia, M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, may be

~--i quashed.

Petitioner withdraw her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. pending before Ms. Neerja Bhatia, M.M.

Karkardooma Courts. c

Respondent withdraw his Suit No.321 of 2007 pending before Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Hapur, U.P.

Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 1232/02/2007 and Civil Suit for restitution being Suit 321/2007 D pending before Civil Judge, Hapur, U.P. stand withdrawn.

2. Orders be sent to the respective courts. Parties are directed to appear before ttie Delhi High Court Mediation Centre for counselling on 4.12.2008.

3. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the petition is disposed of on the terms as set out above. The proceedings as noted above stan~ closed.

K.K.T.

Transfer Petition disposed of.
SRI KRISHNA AGENCIES v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR. 21

0. Bharathi Reddy and Shekhar G. Devasa (for Dinesh A Kumar Garg) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th September, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No. 4508 of 2007 quashing the c proceedings, being C.C. No. 982 of 2005, on the file of the llnd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short the Act) in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. As would appear from the complaint, the same was filed on account of stop payment orders issued with regard to three cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs each.

4. Before the High Court, it was sought to be contended E on behalf of respondent No. 2 that since the appellant herein had already taken recourse to arbitration proceedings, the dispute was obviously of a civil nature and the criminal complaint could not be proceeded with. Accepting the " statements made on behalf of respondent No. 2, the High Court quashed the complaint as indicated hereinabove.

5. Mr. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that the High Court has apparently confused the issue relating to the continuance of the afbitration proceedings as also the criminal proceedings, since G when the cheques were dishonoured, a separate liability arose :1r\ terms of Section i 38 of the Act, whereas the arbitration proceedings were under the agreement signed between the parties. It was submitted by him that the commencement and H

. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the continuance of the arbitration proceedings could in no way affect criminal proceedings taken separately.

6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Adhyaru, referred to the decision of this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry vs.

B Rajesh Agarwal and Ors., (1999) B sec 686, where the same question arose in relation to arbitration proceedings taken during the continuance of a complaint filed under Sections 415 and 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In. the said decision, it was held that merely. because arbitration

c proceedings have been undertaken, the criminal proceedings could not be thwarted. :

7. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the submissions which had been urged before the High Court, were reiterated, which, however, appears to be unacceptable having regard to the D decision cited by Mr. Adhyaru. We are also of the view that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action. The decision in Trisuns Chemical/ndustry's .. case (supra) appears to squarely cover this case as well.

8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the complaint before the learned llnd Additio:nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,.· Hyderabad to be proceeded with in accordance with law.

F R.P.

Appeal allowed.