Search Judgments

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the Special Judge, CBI, Madurai, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 300 for the issuance of a central excise registration certificate.

The prosecution’s case rested on the complaint lodged by the affected party, the testimony of witnesses, and the positive result of the sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test conducted on the appellant’s hands, confirming the acceptance of tainted money.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 (BNS 2023 Section 103): This case concerns a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant’s conviction for the murder of her infant son under Section 302 of the IPC.

The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence and alleged extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant. The key pieces of evidence included the recovery of a dupatta purportedly used in the crime and the medical evidence indicating the child died due to asphyxia caused by throttling.

However, the Supreme Court noted several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 340 and Section 362 (BNSS 2023 Section 379 and 403) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order recalling its earlier judgment, which had disposed of a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 340 of the CrPC. The application sought prosecution of the Appellants for perjury. The dispute originates from disagreements between two groups (Khosla Group and Bakshi Group) regarding the development of a resort. The Khosla Group alleged forgery of documents by the Bakshi Group, leading to the application under Section 340 CrPC.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 411 & 379 (BNS 2023 Section 303 and 317(2)) – The case revolves around the murder of M. Narsaiah, who was allegedly killed by Moulana due to business rivalry, with the assistance of the appellant. The prosecution alleged that Moulana stole money from the deceased and paid the appellant to dispose of the body. The Trial Court acquitted both accused of murder, destruction of evidence, and theft but convicted them under Section 411 IPC for possessing stolen property.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 read with Section 107; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Sections 108 & 45; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – This case revolves around the suicide of a Member of Parliament (MP) who left a suicide note naming individuals in the administration and police, alleging they conspired to defame him, leading to his death. The accused filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, which were allowed by the High Court. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the suicide note and other materials indicating a concerted effort to diminish the deceased’s public image.

The court examined precedents regarding abetment to suicide, emphasizing the need for a proximate act or incident that directly caused the suicide.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which upheld the conviction of the appellant’s deceased husband (the accused) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a lower division clerk in the Passport Office, demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant (PW1) for expeditiously processing his passport application, in addition to the standard fee of Rs. 1000.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 498A, 306, and 109 (BNS 2023 Section 85, 108 and 49) – This appeal challenges a High Court order that overturned a Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellants. The appellants were accused of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC (Appellant No.1) and Sections 498A and 109 read with 306 of the IPC (Appellant No. 2), related to the death of the complainant’s daughter.

The Trial Court had acquitted the accused after considering the evidence.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 – This case involves a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking a declaration to nullify a sale deed and a permanent injunction. The respondent/1st defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Principal Sub Judge, leading to the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

The appellants argued that the lower courts failed to consider crucial documents and wrongly concluded that the 1st appellant company was in amalgamation with the respondent.

Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974  Section 3 – This writ petition was filed challenging an order from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), directing the petitioner, a Class-I Contractor, to pay lifetime tax for their newly purchased Construction Equipment Vehicle, rather than annual tax. The petitioner argued that they should have the option to pay annual tax as per Section 4(1) of the Act. The RTO based their decision on an opinion from the Assistant Audit Officer.

The court examined the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974, particularly focusing on the amendments introduced by Act 30 of 2023.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c), Section 13; Transfer of Property Act – Section 43; Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54; Indian Contract Act – Section 25, Section 31; Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Market (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 – Section 25, Section 26 – This case revolves around a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff seeking to compel the 3rd defendant to execute a sale deed for a shop in Chennai, after the 3rd defendant obtains the sale deed from defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff claimed to have an agreement of sale and a Power of Attorney from the 3rd defendant, and had made payments toward the shop’s purchase. The 3rd defendant contested the suit, claiming the agreement was for a loan, and the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance.

The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance.