Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 294(b), 341, 302, 506(ii) – This appeal challenges the Madras High Court’s decision, which partly allowed the appellant’s appeal against his conviction by the trial court. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 294(b), 341, 302, and 506(ii) of the IPC, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines.

The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, and 302 IPC, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC. The case originated from an FIR filed by PW-1, who alleged that the appellant, along with others, assaulted his son, leading to his death, due to prior animosity related to church elections.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 107 and 116(3); Constitution of India – Article 142 – This case involves appeals against the conviction of Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Hamida Parween. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, specifically motive (property dispute) and the “last seen together” theory.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove either the motive or the presence of the accused with the deceased immediately before her death. The court emphasized that the prosecution did not provide strong and concrete evidence of the property dispute, nor could it prove that the accused were present with the deceased on the morning of the incident.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – The appellant challenged the Telangana High Court’s order which set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order directing the investigating agency to reconsider a case based on a protest petition filed by the appellant. The High Court believed that the Magistrate’s direction amounted to ordering a reinvestigation, a power not vested in the Trial Court.

The core issue revolved around interpreting the Magistrate’s direction to “reconsider the case.” The appellant argued that it implied a continuation of the investigation, not a reinvestigation, especially considering the protest petition and the existing evidence (Sworn Statement and Expert Opinion).

The Supreme Court noted that while the Magistrate’s choice of words might not have been ideal, the direction should be understood as a continuation of the investigation, given the available material.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 (Claim for compensation) – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai in MCOP No.6431 of 2016. The case arose from a fatal accident on 27.09.2015, where the deceased, G. Nithish, was hit by a lorry and a TNSTC bus due to the drivers’ rash and negligent driving. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.41 lakhs.

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) Section 6(1), 7(1) and 18 –  This case involves two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA concerning the forfeiture of property. The petitioners, Mrs. V. Padmavathy and Mr.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) read with 13(2) and The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 420(b), 407, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) – This case revolves around a petition filed by an accused (A4) seeking to quash an FIR (Crime No. 1 of 2017) registered against him and others for alleged misappropriation of funds within the Madurai Corporation. The accused is charged under Sections 420(b), 407, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with 109 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The court notes the extensive delays in completing the investigation and filing the final report, despite previous directions from the court to do so.

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) – Sections 6(1), 6(2), and 10 – This writ petition challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 10 read with Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of SAFEMA. The notice was issued to Sri Premananda Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, concerning properties allegedly acquired illegally by the trust, whose author was Swami Premananda, who was convicted under FERA. The petitioner argued that the notice was infirm because it was not issued to all the appropriate parties, including the contributors to the trust.

The respondent, the Additional Solicitor General of India, contended that the notice complied with SAFEMA, as it was addressed to the author of the trust and communicated to the Managing Trustee.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Sections 63(a), 64(1), 75(i)(ii), 75(i)(iii); Article 21 of the Constitution; Section 228-A of IPC; Right to Information Act, 2005; All India Service (Conduct Rules), 1968 – Rule 6 – This case concerns the sexual assault and rape of a student at Anna University. The FIR was leaked, revealing the victim’s details and leading to victim-shaming. The court addresses the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy, emphasizing that societal stigma contributes to crimes against women. The court also notes lapses by Anna University in ensuring campus security and condemns the premature disclosure of investigation details by the Commissioner of Police in a press conference.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 2(1)(u) and Section 3 – This judgment concerns criminal revision petitions filed against a lower court’s decision to dismiss discharge petitions filed by the accused in C.C.No.19 of 2017. The case originates from an FIR filed by the CBI alleging that customs officials were accepting bribes for clearing unaccompanied baggage at Chennai Airport.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a case (ECIR No.07/2012) under the PMLA, based on the CBI’s FIR. The accused filed discharge petitions arguing that since the seized money was deposited in court custody in 2009, they were no longer in possession of the “Proceeds of Crime,” and that pre-amended PMLA Section 3, which required “projecting it as untainted property,” did not apply to them.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Sections 145, 146 and New Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023  Section 164 – This Criminal Revision Petition challenges an order passed under Section 164 B.N.S.S. (Section 145 Cr.P.C.) concerning a property dispute between the petitioner (A party) and the third respondent (B party). The dispute centers on property originally belonging to one Rajkumar, with the petitioner claiming ownership through an unregistered sale deed and the third respondent acting as a power of attorney holder for Rajkumar’s legal heirs.

The court notes that parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.