Search Judgments

(Murder, Eyewitness Credibility and Evidentiary Lapses)

IPC Sections 302, 34, 506(ii); Cr.P.C. Sections 161(3), 207, 313 - This case involved criminal appeals filed by A1 and A2 against their conviction for the murder of the deceased (A1's husband) by the trial court. A1 was convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and A2 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The prosecution alleged that an illicit relationship between A1 and A2 led them to conspire and murder the deceased.

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961 & Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) – The case involves multiple writ petitions filed against the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) concerning residential flat projects in Chennai. TNHB advertised the flats, stating the price per square foot was inclusive of Goods and Services Tax (GST). Petitioners booked flats based on this representation and paid the advertised price.

Later, TNHB issued notices demanding an additional 5% of the total sale consideration as GST.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – This case involves allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misuse of official position against two accused, A. Selvaraju (Accused 1), a Senior Store Keeper at Salem Steel Plant, and R. Sekar (Accused 2), associated with Trichy RK Steel and Alloys Private Limited.

The prosecution alleged that Accused 1 manipulated records to undervalue scrap material, enabling Accused 2’s company to purchase it at a lower price, resulting in losses for Salem Steel Plant.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 30; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 141, 151 & 152 – The Civil Revision Petitions arise from orders passed in interlocutory applications related to LAOP No. 30 of 2012 concerning land acquired by the Government from M/s. Venkateswara Roller Flour Mill. Due to disputes over compensation entitlement, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the City Civil Court, which deposited the compensation amount.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 157(1) – The case originated from a miscellaneous petition seeking to dispense with the production of a certified copy of an FIR in Crime No. 218 of 2018. The petitioner, an accused in the said FIR, filed the petition in connection with a quash petition against the FIR. The FIR, registered for offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC, was delayed in being forwarded to the jurisdictional court due to being misplaced during renovation works at the police station.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 58, 68 & 70; Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 276 –  This Testamentary Original Suit was filed by the plaintiff, daughter of the deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao, seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, to claim the estates of the deceased based on a registered Will dated 22.02.2008. Defendants 1 to 5, the other children of the deceased through different wives, contested the suit, questioning the Will’s genuineness and validity. They alleged misrepresentation, undue influence, and the testator’s lack of understanding of English, the language of the Will.

The plaintiff examined herself and the scribe of the Will.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 120-B r/w 420, 420 – The case involves appeals against the conviction and sentence of three accused (A1, A2, and A3) and an appeal by the CBI against the acquittal of A1 and A2 under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, railway officials, were charged with criminal conspiracy and cheating related to the fraudulent procurement of furniture. They allegedly colluded with a private contractor (A4) to cause wrongful loss to the Railway Department.

The prosecution’s case rested on allegations that the accused violated procedures by splitting indents to avoid higher approval authorities, awarding contracts to A4 despite lower bidders, and disbursing payments for goods not fully supplied.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Indian Penal Code (IPC)

This judgment pertains to criminal appeals filed against a conviction by the Special Court for CBI cases in Madurai, arising from the same crime number. The core allegation involves a conspiracy where A1, the chief manager of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Palayankottai Branch, colluded with other accused to misappropriate bank funds exceeding ₹2 crores. This was allegedly achieved by A1 granting loans to the other accused without adhering to banking guidelines. Accusations include sanctioning loans to fictitious companies, disbursing various loans (cash credit, hypothecation, term, vehicle, packing credit), and accepting forged valuation certificates to inflate loan amounts.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Royappan Lourdu Jeyaseelan, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, while working as an Upper Division Clerk, amassed disproportionate assets during the check period of 2007-2009.

The trial court found the appellant guilty, stating that his assets were 181% disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant argued that the trial court made calculation errors, and several income sources and loans were not adequately considered.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) – Sections 24(1)(a), 74, 103; Limitation Act, 1963 (1963 Act) – Sections 5, 29(2); Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) – This judgment examined the applicability of the 2013 Act and the Limitation Act to appeals from land acquisition awards. The main issue was whether Section 5 of the 1963 Act, concerning condonation of delay, applies to appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act. An incidental issue addressed which Act governs awards passed after the 2013 Act’s commencement for proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.

The Supreme Court noted the 2013 Act is a special, beneficial law.