Search Judgments

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – This case involves an application filed by Brijnandan @ Brajesh Sharma, seeking release from jail based on juvenility at the time of the offence (17.01.2002), for which he was convicted under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Initially convicted by the Trial Court, acquitted by the High Court, and subsequently convicted again by the Supreme Court in 2022, Brijnandan filed this application claiming he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. Discrepancies in his date of birth across different documents prompted the Court to order an inquiry by the Sessions Court, Bhind.

The Sessions Court’s report confirmed Brijnandan’s date of birth as 04.10.1984, making him 17 years, 3 months, and 13 days old on the date of the offence.

 The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 Rule 45(5) – This case concerns a dispute over the service benefits of a deceased government employee, S. Vijayakumar, between his mother (the appellant), wife, and daughter. Vijayakumar passed away while in service, and the appellant sought a separate share of his Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), Employees Family Security Fund, and other benefits. The original writ petition was dismissed by a single judge, leading to this appeal.

• Criminal Trial – Purpose and Fair Trial (Article 21, Constitution of India): A criminal trial is a fact-finding exercise aimed at determining the truth, ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice. It’s not a mere contest but an inquiry into truth, balancing the demands of justice with the accused’s rights. A fair and just investigation is the foundation of a fair trial, which is a guaranteed right under Article 21 and encompasses the interests of the accused, victim, and society.
• Role of Trial Court: The trial court is not a mere spectator or recording machine; it must be an active participant in the search for truth, maintaining public confidence, and upholding the majesty of law. It has a duty to prevent either side from sabotaging the trial process.
• Procedural Compliance & Judicial Scrutiny: Basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, including proper recording of accused statements (Section 313 Cr.P.C.), timely framing of charges, adequate legal representation (especially for indigent accused), and reasoned disposal of applications (e.g., Section 311 Cr.P.C.), are crucial.
• Legal Aid Counsel – Duty of Court: When an accused is dependent on court-appointed counsel, the court has a heightened responsibility to ensure effective assistance, avoiding late appointments, frequent changes, or absence of counsel during crucial stages like cross-examination.
• Mechanical Proceedings: Courts should avoid mechanical proceedings; orders must reflect due application of mind. Closing cross-examination due to counsel’s absence or rejecting applications summarily undermines a fair trial.Prosecution Duty and Trial Conduct: The prosecution has a responsibility for the smooth and timely conduct of the trial, including ensuring the presence of witnesses.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – This case involves an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar, in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2019, and a cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The claimant, a teacher, suffered the amputation of her right hand due to a bus accident in 2016. The Transport Corporation challenged the tribunal’s finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, while the claimant sought an increase in the awarded amount.

The Transport Corporation argued contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and disputed the assessment of income loss.

Building and Other Construction Workers Cess (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) – Section 2(d) – This case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a refund of Rs.3,14,58,004/- from the first respondent, arguing that the BOCW Act does not apply to the capital dredging work undertaken by the second respondent contractor. The petitioner had remitted the amount as cess, based on a technical inspection report.

The Director General of Inspection/Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) had previously ruled that dredging is not a ‘construction’ activity under Section 2(d) of the BOCW Act. However, the first respondent argued that dredging falls under the definition of ‘construction’ as it involves navigation and embankment works.