Search Judgments

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Deduction of Development Charges.

The petitioners challenged an award deducting 1/3rd of the market value as development charges for land acquired for a new railway line. They argued that such deduction is unwarranted for railway projects and also aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted and proposed to seek its enhancement.

The court noted previous decisions, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others, which stated that no development charge deduction should be made when land is acquired for laying railway lines, as development is not applicable in such cases.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability while in Judicial Custody for a Different Offence

An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even if the accused is already in judicial custody in connection with a different case. The precondition for anticipatory bail is a “reason to believe that he may be arrested,” which can exist for a different, apprehension of arrest in a new case while already in custody in another. The object of anticipatory bail is to protect personal liberty and prevent humiliation of arrest, and this right cannot be curtailed without a clear statutory bar. The fact that an accused is in custody in one case does not mean they cannot apprehend arrest in another. Conditions of anticipatory bail, such as making oneself available for interrogation, would become effective upon release from prior custody and subsequent arrest in the new case.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 235, 353, 354 – Conviction and Sentencing – Change of Presiding Officer after Conviction but before Sentencing

A judgment of conviction delivered under Section 235(1) CrPC becomes final even if the Presiding Officer is transferred before the sentence is pronounced. The successor Presiding Officer is obligated only to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence as per Section 235(2) CrPC, and is not required to re-hear the case on the question of conviction. The pronouncement of conviction in open court in the presence of counsel fulfills the requirements of Section 353 and 354 CrPC, making the court functus officio regarding conviction.

Final Decision:    The appeal is dismissed.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 333, 355, 379 read with Section 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court – Reversal of Trial Court Conviction – Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimony – Delay in FIR/Statements – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

The High Court erred in acquitting the accused by discrediting eye-witness testimonies based on speculative reasons, such as a witness being a relative, not being the informant, minor contradictions, or a criminal background. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India; courts must separate truth from falsehood in testimony. The absence of a witness’s name in the initial fardbeyan or FIR is significant, but not always conclusive. Presence of influential individuals in a hospital without formal entry is common and does not automatically invalidate their testimony.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) – Bribery – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Circumstantial Evidence – Role of Shadow Witness – Credibility of Interested Witness – Duty of Trap Laying Officer (TLO)

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. While this can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, the TLO has a duty to verify the demand of bribe before organizing a trap, particularly by recording conversations or deploying independent shadow witnesses. The testimony of an interested witness, such as a close friend of the complainant, needs careful scrutiny and corroboration. A crucial admission made by the complainant during cross-examination, especially regarding handling of the bag where tainted money was found, cannot be cursorily dismissed as an afterthought if not re-examined by the prosecution.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings – Sections 156(3), 173(2), 204 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating) – Mens Rea – Investigation – Prima Facie Case

At the stage of quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the allegations must be taken at face value. The court should ascertain whether a prima facie case of a cognizable offence is made out, without delving into the correctness of the allegations. The existence of mens rea is a question of fact that can be inferred from actions and surrounding circumstances, necessitating investigation. An FIR is not an exhaustive document, and the gravamen of accusations determines if a cognizable offense is disclosed.

• Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Welfare of the Child: High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 for Habeas Corpus in child custody matters is discretionary. Even if custody is illegal, the High Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if disturbing custody would not be in the child’s welfare and best interests, especially for a child of tender age. The paramount consideration is always the child’s welfare, not merely the legal rights of parties.
• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act) – Custody Proceedings: For substantive decisions on child custody and guardianship, proceedings under the GW Act before a regular Civil/Family Court are generally more appropriate than a Habeas Corpus petition, as these courts can conduct detailed inquiries, record evidence, and monitor access arrangements.
• Child Welfare – Access to Parents/Grandparents: Even if custody is not immediately granted to a parent, the child’s welfare dictates that they should have access to and build a relationship with their biological parents and grandparents.

Final Decision:    The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissing the Habeas Corpus petition as custody should not be disturbed at this stage under Article 226 without considering the child’s welfare. The Court directed the appellants to file a custody petition under the GW Act, while also establishing an interim arrangement for the father and paternal grandparents to have supervised access to the child.

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt: For a successful prosecution under Section 138, the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability for which the cheque was issued. Mere issuance of a cheque and dishonour are insufficient if the underlying debt is not established or is successfully rebutted.
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118 & 139 – Presumption of Guilt – Rebuttal: The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt is rebuttable. The accused can rebut this presumption by raising a plausible defence on the ‘preponderance of probabilities’, even without proving their defence beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court and Appellate Court are entitled to re-evaluate evidence to determine if the presumption was rebutted.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference: In an appeal against acquittal, especially when there are concurrent findings of two appellate courts, the Supreme Court’s interference is limited to cases where findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

Final Decision:    The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Contributory Negligence: An act of merely attempting to overtake a vehicle on the road, without any other evidence suggesting rashness or negligence, cannot by itself be termed as an act of contributory negligence, especially when the other vehicle involved in the accident was proven to be driven rashly and negligently. The burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party asserting it.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Multiplier: The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident cases should be applied in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood on the date of filing the Special Leave Petition, even if it was subsequently omitted.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Future Prospects: In cases where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, future prospects are to be added to the established income as per the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.