7 Important Supreme Court Judgments February 4, 2019

1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha @ Omprakash

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable.

The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven. 

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147 and 307 read with 149 and 323 - Attempt to murder - proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.



In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven punctured wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate that there was an intention to murder. The presence of 11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307 of the Penal Code is attracted in the present case.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 713 : JT 2019 (2) SC 112 : 2019 (2) Scale 454
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1589 of 2018 04-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : C.D. Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Pashupathi Nath Razdan
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah


2. Federation Haj Ptos of India v. Union of India

Administrative Law - Haj Policy - Registration - Eligibility - Policy decisions of the Executive are best left to it and a court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Government policy. Public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing the policies. It is well accepted principle that in complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. Courts are illequipped to substitute their decisions. It is not within the realm of the courts to go into the issue as to whether there could have been a better policy and on that parameters direct the Executive to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which appears better to the court. Such an exercise is impermissible in policy matters. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the court would interfere with such policy decisions. 



Citations : 2019 (2) Scale 460
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 4 of 2019 04-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kripa Shankar Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

3. Ram Lal v. Salig Ram

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 75, Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) - If the Local Commissioner’s report was found wanting in compliance of applicable instructions for the purpose of demarcation, it was only a matter of irregularity and could have only resulted in discarding of such a report and requiring a fresh report but any such flaw, by itself, could have neither resulted in nullifying the order requiring appointment of Local Commissioner and for recording a finding after taking his report nor in dismissal of the suit. 



Hence, we are unable to approve the approach of High Court, where after rejecting the Commissioner’s report, the High Court straightway proceeded to dismiss the suit. The plaintiffs have been asserting encroachment by the defendants on their land and have also adduced oral and documentary evidence in that regard. As noticed, the First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff not only with reference to the Commissioner’s report but also with reference to the other evidence of the parties. Unfortunately, the High Court appears to have overlooked the other evidence on record.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 729 : JT 2019 (2) SC 106 : 2019 (2) Scale 524
Case Number : C.A. No. 8285 of 2009 04-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Priya Puri
Respondent's Advocate : Manju Jetley
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

4. Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Bihar

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 195 and 340 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 193 - Punishment for False Evidence - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195 - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - the offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are clearly distinct. The first category of offences refers to offences of false evidence and offences against public justice, whereas, the second category of offences relates to offences in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 - Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only 13 consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted.

The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a private complaint. The High Court, in our view, has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to set aside the costs imposed by the High Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Citations : (2019) 3 SCC 318
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 211 of 2019 04-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ashwani Bhardwaj
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

5. Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 - Section 115 - Revision Petitions are not maintainable against interlocutory orders - Revisional Jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 1047 : 2019 (3) Scale 86
Case Number : C.A. No. 1416 of 2019 04-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

6. M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Joel

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - It would be necessary for this Court to put in place an administrative mechanism that would ensure that a decision to release water for industrial purposes is monitored by the Collector of the District who shall conduct a due verification of the data which is available with the TWAD Board. The Collector should independently assess the situation so as to ensure that the need for drinking water and irrigation is not compromised.

Citations : 2019 (3) Scale 303
Case Number : C.A. No. 11935 of 2018 04-02-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Mr. K.K. Mani,AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.(AAG) Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Ms. S. Valarmathi, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastav, Sr.Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. M. Avokiyaraj, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mr. R. Naveenraj, Adv. Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Ramesh, Adv. for Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv. for Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

7. Shilaben Ashwinkumar Rana v. Bhavin K. Shah

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence - Enhancement of compensation.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 289
Case Number : C.A. No. 1442 of 2019 04-02-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Previous Post Next Post