The Supreme Court ruled in a recent case that Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code applied the principle of 'transferred intent'. The Court stressed that, to put it colloquially, Homicide or murder is not simply a matter of slaying another human. Its implementation in reality is realized by an accumulation of facts showing as to who did what and how well equipped they were for doing it. What might appear on first blush to be unwarranted actions to an uninformed observer actually fulfill the criteria for an award of homicide at law. The Supreme Court's judgment referred to past cases where the doctrine had been used, and established that even if the appellant had no intent to kill the deceased he could still be found guilty on charges of Section 302 Indian Penal Code (murder). The Court did make an exception under Section 300 (fourth exception), however, which asserts that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight.
The Bombay High Court has recently decided that the period of limitation in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for offenses falling under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) starts with some last instance marital cruelty. This section deals with cruelty to brides.According to the court, the delay in registration of an FIR as well as later taking cognizance of tobacco mechanisms were not so great as to rule out a case. If one considers that nearly one month passed before the Women's Grievance Redressal Cell made a complaint all possible challenges could be deflected with three exceptions; and it lasted for three and half months from when an officer took sponsorship.
In a case in point, his Mercedes-Benz was allegedly stolen and improperly insured. This sentence was written to show that it was alleged from the use In its judgement, the court recommended an investigation by a special police team or crime branch to look into this case and pointed out exploding-crime-term insurance scams lying further mischief of taking things off-line further The court also said that when the guilty are caught, they must be given heavier penalties. It blamed a coup d'etat for a Wrong sentence, I deleted it The court also noted another characteristic of this thievery: people report their stolen or damaged cars three days later than the policy allows to keep payment down, and because one such policy has never been recovered in its entirety.
The Supreme Court recenly discussed how far the police may go in further investigations under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).The court also affirmed that even if a charging document has been submitted and trial started--further inquiry should still be carried out.Whether or not there was such subpoena, the primary consideration is to get at the truth.Many a times it comments sharply upon this repeated statement and emphasizes what it really means, rather than simply give lip service to something untrue or why an error is quite explicable.Further investigation can come however after a charge sheet has been filed and trial has commenced: for the prime consideration now becomes arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice.
he Orissa High Court has recently ruled that a Magistrate must hear submissions of the police officer when they refuse to register a First Information Report (FIR). This Court mandates that the Magistrate consider the police officer’s reasons for refusal, along with the complainant’s affidavit to the Superintendent of Police, and ensure a proper inquiry before ordering an investigation. The ruling came in response to a petition from an individual whose FIR was not registered, leading her to directly approach the High Court instead of the judicial Magistrate.
On Friday (February 8), the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the electoral manual provisions that allowed students studying out of their constituency to transfer their names from electoral rolls to where they are studying. This matter was being heard by the bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. For students studying outside of their resident constituency, he said, they would either have to travel home for voting or else change their electoral location to where they are studying.
Recently, the Supreme Court was seized of the question of what are the ingredients for an offence to be covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which pertains to dishonour of cheque by the company. The Court clarified that in order to incur liability, the accused person must have been in charge of and responsible for the business when the offense was committed.
In a latest Development, the Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a Judgment with respect to the right of the employee who suffers a Disablement during his Service. The Court found that the income and benefits in question of such employees shall not be deprived and they shall be entitled to continued salary, benefits and posting without a position. Moreover, the Court state that the employees ought to be compensated for the deduction of the dues by making interest payment on such dues.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday scheduled the hearing of pleas challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) under the new 2023 law for February 19—just a day after the current CEC, Rajiv Kumar, retires on February 18. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), urged the apex court to list and hear the matter at the earliest, emphasising the urgency of the case. He noted that while the pleas were initially set for a hearing on Wednesday, they had now been deferred to February 19.
Recently, the Kerala High Court [in the case of Dhanik Karam Sarathi vs. Vaikom Sahakarana Bank Ltd] dealing with a case for which administrative remedy had been exhausted, once again makes it very clear that the permission sought under the Article 227 of the Constitution for exercising supervisory jurisdiction is not to be mistaken as appellate or revisional jurisdiction, it must be exercised sparingly - in a case of obvious error or wrong leading to gross injustice. The defendant did not perform their contractual obligation, the High Court held. The Court refused to interfere with the order of Trial Court and dismissed the petition, stressing that Article 227 cannot be employed as an appellate or revisional power
A New Income Tax Bill 2025 To Be Introduced: During her Budget 2025 speech, FM Nirmala Sitharaman announced that a new income tax bill will be introduced during the parliament's budget session. According to sources, FM Sitharaman is expected to introduce the new income tax bill on (Thursday February 13, 2025). The bill proposed a complete revamp of the 64-year-old Income Tax Act, and to simplify and minimize the sections, sub-sections, and complications of the existing Income Tax Act, 1961.
On Thursday (February 13), the Supreme Court quashed the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a man on the ground that the trial court meandering at making contradiction to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination with their earlier recorded Section 161 Cr. P.C. statements. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the trial court had committed an error in simply reproducing the portions of witness's Section 161 Cr. P.C. statements in brackets not duly established by way of the investigating officer. In order to demonstrate the correct procedure, the Court pointed out that when a witness is being cross-examined on the basis of his Section 161 Cr. In F.I.R/ P.C. statements, the part of statement to be used for contradiction, must first come on the record, with the investigation officer putting it as part of his evidence.
The Supreme Court on Friday (February 14) heard the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) against the Madras High Court order overturning the show-cause notice issued to Sadhguru's Isha Foundation for conducting construction work between 2006-2014 at the Vellangiri hills situated in Coimbatore, without applying for a crucial environmental clearance. At the start of hearing, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh raised a query regarding the delay of over two years in challenging the High Court order passed in December 2022.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench today (February 13) commenced hearing in the matter of whether Courts have the power to change an arbitral award under the provisions of S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. S. 34 details the procedure to be followed for an application to set aside. An order is not appealable unless it is provided by S. 37 of the Act in respect to arbitral disputes. The bench includes Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV Viswanathan along with CJI Sanjiv Khanna. Today (February 13), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court commenced its hearing on the question of whether Courts are empowered to amplify an arbitral award in accordance with S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. S. 34 lays down the framework for applying for setting aside an arbitral award. In S. 37 of the Act instances where appeal will lie are discussed against the orders regarding arbitral disputes. The bench includes Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV Viswanathan.
The Supreme Court has recently considered the discretionary nature of an award of interest under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the context of a commercial dispute, observing that such an award can be denied where the conduct of a party undermines the authority of the courts of law and violates contractual obligations. It emphasized that interest is meant to replace the time value of funds taken away from commerce by litigation, balancing fairness in commercial dealings. Yet it allowed a departure from this standard because of the appellant's efforts to attack the integrity of the judiciary and misuse procedural mechanisms for personal advantage.