Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them. A bench comprising Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Anil Kumar Chawla noted that a person against whom a prosecution is being initiated cannot be denied a copy of the material relied upon to prosecute her/ him. “9. …The basic principle o...

The Supreme Court, in Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State of Assam, has reiterated that “last seen together” along with “absence of satisfactory explanation” cannot be made the sole basis of conviction, when the other circumstances could not be proved. The high court, in the instant case, had convicted the accused holding that the onus was on the accused to explain and exculpate themselves when the ‘last seen theory’ was established and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the presumption would suggest the guilt of the accused. The accused were charged with offences of murder and rape. The Trial Court had returned an order of acquittal which was later challenged before the High Court. Referring to various decisions on the aspect of ‘last seen together’, the bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Navin Sinha observed that where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen toge...

The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased by marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related and interested witness to reject his testimony, the Supreme Court has observed while dismissing the appeals in a murder case (Chandrasekar vs State). The wife of the deceased and her relatives were prime witnesses in this case and they had deposed seeing the murderous assault on the deceased by the accused. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and the high court had upheld the verdict. “It may only call for greater scrutiny and caution in consideration of the evidence,” the court observed, while rejecting the contention that these witnesses were interested witnessed and their testimony be rejected. With regard to deposition by the wife, the bench observed: “Being the wife of the deceased, we find no reason why she would not be speaking the truth with regard to the real assailants instead of shielding them by fa...

Central Information Commission Kalyan Kumar Ganguly v. PIO, ESIC, Kolkata MANU/CI/0314/2017 11.05.2017 Right to Information Information relating to wages of employees has to be voluntarily disclosed by public authority Appellant sought information regarding M/s. Laxmi Distribution. Specifically, he sought relationship between one Mr. H.B. Singhvi and M/s. Laxmi Distribution; return of contribution filed for relevant period and whether it was certified by chartered accountants or not; total number of employees working in said establishment etc. through eight points. CPIO denied on grounds that, information sought was relating to third party. Being dissatisfied by Order given by FAA who upheld decision of CPIO, Appellant approached this Commission. Appellant submitted that, PF amount was deducted for period 1986 to 1988 but it was not deposited, and no benefits were given from 1986 to 2016. PF account is not like any other individual private bank account where all his perso...

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Sobha Developers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Bangalore MANU/CB/0070/2017 15.05.2017 Excise Refund claim cannot be converted into rebate claim without following prescribed procedure In facts of present case, Appellants are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 7308 90 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants have filed an application for refund of Rs. 10,48,313/- being duty paid on goods cleared to Infosys Technologies Ltd., Chandigarh. Infosys Technologies Ltd., Chandigarh was declared as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit by Development Commissioner, Noida, Special Economic Zone, Ministry of Commerce and Industries vide letter No. 5/5/2006-Chg.SEZ/8797 dated 16th June, 2006. Appellant cleared goods on payment of duty even after receipt of approval by M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd. as SEZ. Duty thus, paid for supplies made from 17th June, 2006 to 16th November, 200...

High Court of Rajasthan Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. MANU/RH/0319/2017 12.05.2017 Criminal Court has power to direct further investigation in interest of complete and fair investigation Present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred for quashing of FIR registered as well as proceedings in furtherance thereof for offences under Sections 191, 192, 196, 197, 200, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B  of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Matter pertains to contest of election by Petitioner as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Jaswantpura. It is alleged in FIR that, alongwith nomination paper, a certificate of Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhi Nagar, Examination Wing, Vadodara was submitted by contestant, present petitioner. Petitioner was elected as member of Panchayat Samiti, and thereafter, again filed a nomination paper for election of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Jaswantpura on 07th February, ...

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Satnam Kaur v. Gurjeet Singh MANU/PH/0385/2017 12.05.2017 Family Power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection Applicant-wife, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeks transfer of a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 titled as Gurjeet Singh v. Satnam Kaur filed by respondent-husband from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga. It is relevant to note that, Applicant-wife, along with her minor child, is living with her parents at Moga. Since, Applicant-wife is not working, she is dependent on her parents. Respondent-husband is not paying any amount of maintenance either for Applicant-wife or for minor child. Distance between Mohali and Moga is more than 150 kilometers. Other litigations between the parties, at instance of Applicant-wife, are also pending at Moga. In view of undisputed fact situation of case, Present Court concluded that,...