Section 13(8) – The right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002. –The right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002 and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction purchaser- The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower. –The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI – [CELIR LLP vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd 2023 INSC 838]

Section 24 of PML Act cannot be utilized to presume the guilt of the accused for the predicate offences alleged – section 24 of the PML Act provides for the burden of proof and directs that the court shall presume that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering – [Thomas Daniel vs Enforcement Directorate – 2023 KER 54162]

Section 148 – Can the Appellate Court suspend the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act without imposing the condition of 20% deposit as stipulated under Section 148 NI Act?– The view that the deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception is erroneous – Normally, the Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. [Jamboo Bhandari vs MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd – 2023 INSC 822] Section 141 NI Act- Dishonoured cheque was issued by Director on behalf of company. Cheque bounce complaint was filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and only this director is the sole accused. Can such a complaint be entertained ? A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be proceeded with without making the company as accused in the case – [RA Samy vs C Ravichandran – CrA 2732/2023] Section 138,139 – Time Barred cheque – If the question as to whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise – Entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings at the stage earlier to the evidence would not be justified – [K. Hymavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2023 INSC 811]

How to test the legality of orders of preventive detention – criticized police officers of Telangana for illegal invocation of Preventive Detention laws – [Ameena Begum vs State of Telangana – 2023 INSC 788]

Can High Courts refuse to decide cases on the ground that the leading judgment of the Supreme Court is (1) referred to a larger Bench or (2) a review petition relating thereto is pending or (3) a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness ? No ! High Courts have to proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands ! It is not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts. [Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference – 2023 INSC 804]

Section 50 Accused not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer – Vijaysinh Jadeja vs State of Gujarat- there was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Conviction cannot be sustained- [Mina Pun vs State of UP 2023 INSC 776]

Section 21(5) 2nd proviso – “..the word `shall’ be read down to read as `may’,” Bombay High Court held that 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act is directory. It disagreed with the view of Kerala and Calcutta High Courts that the proviso is mandatory. It concurred with the view of Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and Chhattisgarh High Courts that it is directory. This means that an application seeking to condone delay beyond 90 days in filing an appeal against the judgment, sentence, order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court is maintainable, on sufficient cause being shown – [Faizal Hasamali Mirza Kasib vs State of Maharashtra – 2023:BHC-AS:27039-DB]

Merely because the officers of the State Government, do not have to pay for the litigation from their own pocket, they cannot be permitted to file such frivolous petitions and harass the landowners, who have already lost their valuable land – [Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Vithal Rao – SLP(Diary) 30326/2023]

Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 – Limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – The court will have to see whether any time was fixed for performance of the agreement to sell and if so fixed, whether the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period, unless a case for extension of time or performance was pleaded or established. However, when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract – [ A Valliammai vs KP Murali 2023 INSC 823 ]

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 ; Section 30- – An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts – The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law”, is perversity in the findings – Act is a social welfare legislation and, therefore, it must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act – [Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav vs New India Assurance Co Ltd – 2023 INSC 790]

Lien – ‘lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or absorbed permanently. Otherwise, his/her lien would continue on the previous post – [L R Patil vs Gulbarga University 2023 INSC 796] Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review – Power of judicial review for the Courts in disciplinary action is circumscribed. The Court can only correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the power exercised is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. – [Punjab National Bank vs M L Kalra (D)] Termination of Employee – [Jagpal Singh vs State of UP – 2023 INSC 777.]

A murder case of the year 2005. Makkella Nagaiah and others were convicted by the Trial Court in 2009. The High Court dismissed their appeals in 2014. In 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed their SLPs. After all this, one of the accused approached the Apex Court raising Juvenility plea. He has already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. The question of juvenility can be raised before any Court and at any stage, the court noted. It found that this accused was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime. Thus he was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence. Thus, the Court ordered his release. [Makkella Nagaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2023 INSC 800]

Trademark & Passing Off Action –The volume of sale and the extent of advertisement made of the product in question will be a relevant consideration for deciding whether the appellant had acquired a reputation or goodwill. – The passing off action which is premised on the rights of the prime user generating goodwill, shall remain unaffected by any registration provided in the Act. – If goodwill or reputation in a particular jurisdiction is not established by the plaintiff, no other issue really would need any further examination to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s right in the action of passing ­off. –For establishing goodwill of the product, it was necessary to prove not only the figures of sale of the product but also the expenditure incurred on promotion and advertisement of the product. –While deciding an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for passing­off action, in a given case, the statements of accounts signed by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff indicating the expenses incurred on advertisement and promotion and figures of sales may constitute a material which can be considered for examining whether a prima facie case was made out by the appellant­plaintiff. However, at the time of the final hearing of the suit, the figures must be proved in a manner known to law – [Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited vs Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana – 2023 INSC 831] Copyright Infringement – Acquiescence is a defence available in action for the infringement of copyright- If the acquiescence in infringement amounts to consent, it will be a complete defence. Acquiescence is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights and it applies to positive acts and not merely silence or inaction such as is involved in laches. Mere negligence is not sufficient – [Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited vs Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana – 2023 INSC 831]

Section 19 Family Courts Act – Section 28 HMA – What is the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a decree or order passed by a Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ? Delhi High Court noticed that there is an inconsistency between Section 28 of HMA which prescribes a period of 90 days for filing an appeal and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act which prescribes a period of 30 days for filing an appeal. The court held that the Family Courts Act will prevail and therefore the the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the Family Court is thirty days – [Pallavi Mohan vs Raghu Menon 2023 DHC 6586] Section 24 HMA – The wife is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance – [Niharika Ghosh Niharika Kundu vs Shankar Ghosh – 2023 DHC 6553] Section 7A HMA (applicable in Tamil Nadu) – Section 7A required the intending spouses to declare and express to each other their willingness to take each other as spouses and symbolically garlanding each other and tying a “Thali”. In S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v Inspector of Police, 2014 (7) MadLJ 651, Madras High Court interpreted the procedure of declaration by the intending spouses “in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons”. Now, the Supreme Court held that this view is erroneous as it is premised on the assumption that every marriage requires a public solemnization or declaration. The court observed: Such a view is simplistic because often due to parental or pressure among kinship groups, or caste/community institutions, couples intending to enter into matrimony, may not be able to, for the reasons of such opposition- hold or give such a public declaration. Doing so would imperil their lives or could in the very least likely result in danger to their bodily integrity or at worst, a forceable or coerced separation of one from the other. It is not hard to visualize other pressures being brought to bear upon two individuals, who are otherwise adults and have exercised their freewill. To superimpose the condition of a public declaration, which is absent in section 7A , in the opinion of this Court, it is not only narrowing the otherwise wide import of the statue but also would be violative of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – [Ilavarasan vs Superintendent of Police 2023 INSC 813.] Section 13 HMA- An element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce. – [Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 INSC 814] Section 13 HMA – Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism – The court must also keep in mind that the home which is meant to be a happy and loveable place to live, becomes a source of misery and agony where the partners fight. When there are children they become direct victims of the said fights, though they may practically have no role in the breakdown of marriage. They suffer irreparable harm especially when the couple at loggerheads, remain unmindful and unconcerned about the psychological and mental impact it has on her/him. – [Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 INSC 814] Hindu Marriage Act ; Section 16 – Hindu Succession Act ; Section 6 – The very concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. If a person born from a void or voidable marriage to whom legitimacy is conferred by sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 were to have an interest by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law, this would certainly affect the rights of others apart from the parents of the child. Holding that the consequence of legitimacy under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 is to place such an individual on an equal footing as a coparcener in the coparcenary would be contrary to the plain intendment of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the HMA 1955 which recognises rights to or in the property only of the parents. In fact, the use of language in the negative by Section 16(3) places the position beyond the pale of doubt. We would therefore have to hold that when an individual falls within the protective ambit of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16, they would be entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person. [Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun 2023 INSC 783] Section 19 Family Courts Act – Section 28 HMA – What is the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a decree or order passed by a Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ? Delhi High Court noticed that there is an inconsistency between Section 28 of HMA which prescribes a period of 90 days for filing an appeal and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act which prescribes a period of 30 days for filing an appeal. The court held that the Family Courts Act will prevail and therefore the the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the Family Court is thirty days – [Pallavi Mohan vs Raghu Menon 2023 DHC 6586] Section 24 HMA – The wife is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance – [Niharika Ghosh Niharika Kundu vs Shankar Ghosh – 2023 DHC 6553] Section 7A HMA (applicable in Tamil Nadu) – Section 7A required the intending spouses to declare and express to each other their willingness to take each other as spouses and symbolically garlanding each other and tying a “Thali”. In S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan v Inspector of Police, 2014 (7) MadLJ 651, Madras High Court interpreted the procedure of declaration by the intending spouses “in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons”. Now, the Supreme Court held that this view is erroneous as it is premised on the assumption that every marriage requires a public solemnization or declaration. The court observed: Such a view is simplistic because often due to parental or pressure among kinship groups, or caste/community institutions, couples intending to enter into matrimony, may not be able to, for the reasons of such opposition- hold or give such a public declaration. Doing so would imperil their lives or could in the very least likely result in danger to their bodily integrity or at worst, a forceable or coerced separation of one from the other. It is not hard to visualize other pressures being brought to bear upon two individuals, who are otherwise adults and have exercised their freewill. To superimpose the condition of a public declaration, which is absent in section 7A , in the opinion of this Court, it is not only narrowing the otherwise wide import of the statue but also would be violative of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – [Ilavarasan vs Superintendent of Police 2023 INSC 813.] Section 13 HMA- An element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce. – [Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 INSC 814] Section 13 HMA – Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism – The court must also keep in mind that the home which is meant to be a happy and loveable place to live, becomes a source of misery and agony where the partners fight. When there are children they become direct victims of the said fights, though they may practically have no role in the breakdown of marriage. They suffer irreparable harm especially when the couple at loggerheads, remain unmindful and unconcerned about the psychological and mental impact it has on her/him. – [Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 INSC 814] Hindu Marriage Act ; Section 16 – Hindu Succession Act ; Section 6 – The very concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. If a person born from a void or voidable marriage to whom legitimacy is conferred by sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 were to have an interest by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law, this would certainly affect the rights of others apart from the parents of the child. Holding that the consequence of legitimacy under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 is to place such an individual on an equal footing as a coparcener in the coparcenary would be contrary to the plain intendment of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the HMA 1955 which recognises rights to or in the property only of the parents. In fact, the use of language in the negative by Section 16(3) places the position beyond the pale of doubt. We would therefore have to hold that when an individual falls within the protective ambit of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16, they would be entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person. [Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun 2023 INSC 783]

An assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the willful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 -An undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act 1971 –The apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, same should not be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness – Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law. Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. This may include issue of directions either for reversal of the transactions by declaring such transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him.– The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself into the same – [Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs Hiralal Somabhai Contractor – 2023 INSC 805]

Practice and Procedure – Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC- [ARN Infrastructure India Limited vs Hara Prasad Ghosh CA (Diary) 31182 of 2023] Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Interpretation of the word and expression “Commercial Purpose” – When there is an assertion in the complaint filed before the Consumer Court or Commission that such goods are purchased for earning livelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the bud and dismissed. Evidence tendered by parties will have to be evaluated on the basis of pleadings and thereafter conclusion be arrived at. Primarily it has to be seen as to whether the averments made in the complaint would suffice to examine the same on merits and in the event of answer being in the affirmative, it ought to proceed further. On the contrary, if the answer is the negative, such complaint can be dismissed at the threshold. Thus, it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any defined formula with mathematical precision to examine the claims for non-suiting the complainant on account of such complaint not falling within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) – [Rohit Chaudhary vs Vipul Ltd 2023 INSC 807]

Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – If no substantial question of law arose in the case then the appeal could not have been entertained and ought to have been dismissed at the stage of admission. But on the other hand, in the absence of framing any substantial question of law the appeal has been allowed, that too, at the stage of admission, without issuance of notice to the other respondents and by hearing only counsel for one respondent before the High Court who was on caveat – [Hemavathi vs V Hombegowda 2023 INSC 848] Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided – In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law – it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below – [Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vs Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar 2023 INSC 846] Section 100 CPC– What is the meaning of the phrase “substantial question of law” in Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure ? The test is whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly or substantially affects the right of the parties or whether the question is still open i.e., it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court- The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely-Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance- A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law- To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter- It will depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.-When court is called upon to interpret documents and examine their effect, depending upon the nature of controversy and the issues involved, it would constitute substantial question (s) of law – [Appaiya vs Andimuthu Thangapandi 2023 INSC 835.] Section 100 CPC (second appeal)- High Court judgment in a second appeal set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground of non framing of substantial questions of law. In this case, Uttarakhand High Court framed a substantial question of law only to recall it later. Thereafter without framing a new substantial question of law, it disposed of the second appeal re-appreciating evidence. Supreme Court now set aside this HC judgment and directed it to consider the second appeal afresh. “if the appeal was entertained without framing substantial questions of law, then it would be illegal and would amount to failure or abdication of the duty cast on the court. Further, it was held that existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 100, Code”, the court noted. – [Ashok Kumar Goel vs Ram Niwas Goel – SLP(C) .6474-6475/2019.]

Section 26-27 – Being in ‘the custody of a police officer’ and being ‘accused of an offence’, are indispensable pre-requisites to render a confession made to the police admissible to a limited extent, by bringing into play the exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the accused’s name was not in the FIR. He was taken to the police station. Before his arrest was recorded, he is said to have made a confession. The court held thus: “It was his arrest which resulted in actual ‘police custody’, and the confession made by him, before such arrest and prior to his being ‘accused of any offence’, would be directly hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and there is no possibility of applying the exception under Section 27 to any information given by him in the course of such confession, even if it may have led to the discovery of any fact.” So the court held that the purported discovery of the dead body, the murder weapon and the other material objects, even if it was at his behest of, cannot be proved against him, as he was not ‘accused of any offence’ and was not in ‘police custody’ at the point of time he allegedly made a confession –

Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction in SARFAESI matters – High Courts should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – CELIR LLP vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai ) Pvt. Ltd 2023 INSC 838 Article 13,14, 19, 21- Fundamental rights do not exist in silos, the Supreme Court observed while it referred the challenge against constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (sedition) to a larger bench.The court noted that the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar did not : (1) make a distinction between the State which falls within the ambit of Article 19(2) and the Government, which does not (2) consider the validity of the provision against a constitutional challenge on the basis of Article 14. The court also rejected the Union Government’s plea to defer considering whether a reference should be made to a larger bench. It had submittted that the Parliament is in the process of reenacting the provisions of the Penal Code and the Bill has been placed before a Standing Committee. “The validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined.”, the court noted – S G Vombatkere vs Union of India WP(C) 682 of 2021 Article 136 – The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in favour of the party even suo moto when the Court is satisfied that compelling ground for its exercise exists. However, such suo moto power should be used very sparingly with caution and circumspection. The Court held that the power must be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases. – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829 Article 136 – An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non­speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829 Article 20 – Sub-article (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution consists of two parts. The first part prohibits any law that prescribes judicial punishment for violation of law with retrospective effect. Subarticle (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution does not apply to civil liability, as distinguished from punishment for a criminal offence. Further, what is prohibited is conviction or sentence for any offence under an ex post facto law, albeit the trial itself is not prohibited. Trial under a procedure different from the one when at the time of commission of an offence, or by a court different from the time when the offence was committed is not unconstitutional on account of violation of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution. It may be different, if the procedure or the trial is challengeable on account of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution or violation of any other fundamental right- The right under first part of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution is a very valuable right, which must be safeguarded and protected by the courts as it is a constitutional mandate – the second part of sub-article (1) to Article 20, which states that a person can only be subjected to penalties prescribed under the law at the time when the offence for which he is charged was committed. Any additional or higher penalty prescribed by any law after the offence was committed cannot be imposed or inflicted on him. The sub-article does not prohibit substitution of the penalty or sentence which is not higher or greater than the previous one or modification of rigours of criminal law – Article 20(1) of the Constitution only and only confines to conviction and sentence. It does not at all refer to any procedural part which may result into conviction or acquittal and/or sentence. (Para 26-30, 35) CBI vs RR Kishore – 2023 INSC 817.

Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report- Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. [Zunaid vs State of UP – 2023 INSC 778] Bail – Gujarat High Court granted bail to a murder accused. One of the factors considered by the High Court was that the accused and deceased’s son entered into settlement. Now, Supreme Court finds it strange and sets aside the bail order. Accused’s antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime, the court said – [Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat] Section 272 Crpc – A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of Crpc or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed,…. the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. – [CBI vs Narottam Dhakad -2023 INSC 770] On Section 4(2) Crpc – Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of the Crpc shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from the IPC. However, the application of the Crpc will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to deal with the investigation, inquiry, or the trial of the special offence. –In determining whether a special procedure will override the general procedure laid down under the Crpc, the courts have to ascertain whether the special law excludes, either specifically or by necessary implication, the application of the provisions of the Crpc – [Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeet singh Mohindersingh Basi and Others | 2023 INSC 710]

Direction to deposit the amount of ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the victim – This Court, time and again, deprecated the practice of putting such conditions while granting bail – [Gopinath vs State of Maharashtra – SLP (Crl.) No.8373 of 2023] Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months – [Ranjit Digal vs State of Odisha – SLP(Crl) 8926 OF 2023] Bail application of the petitioner is opposed on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and as such warrants came to be issued – Since the petitioner is in prison, therefore, it was the duty of the police authorities to produce him before the Trial Court. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the negligence on behalf of the police authorities- Bail granted – [Satendra Babu vs State of UP –– SLP(Crl) 8247/2023] Gujarat High Court granted bail to a murder accused. One of the factors considered by the High Court was that the accused and deceased’s son entered into settlement. Now, Supreme Court finds it strange and sets aside the bail order. Accused’s antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime, the court said – [Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat]

IThe power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.” – [D vs A 2023 DHC 6803 -DB]