3 Important Supreme Court Judgments March 14, 2019

1. Periyasamy v. S. Nallasamy

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

Mere disclosing the names of the accused cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence.



The additional accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in casual and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent evidence.

Under Section 319 of the Code additional accused can be summoned only if there is more than prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge but which is less than the satisfaction required at the time of conclusion of the trial convicting the accused.

The High Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate only on the basis of the statements of some of the witnesses examined by the Complainant. Mere disclosing the names of the appellants cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence under Section 319 of the Code, especially when the Complainant is a husband and has initiated criminal proceedings against family of his in-laws and when their names or other identity were not disclosed at the first opportunity. [Para 15]

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 456 of 2019 14-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : M.P. Parthiban
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta


2. Rameshwar Dass v. The State of Punjab

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Whether the landowner is entitled to claim enhancement in the rate of compensation awarded by the High Court.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3024 of 2019 14-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : O.P. Bhadani
Respondent's Advocate : Uttara Babbar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

3. Sarvepalli Ramaiah (d) Tr. Lrs. v. District Collector Chittoor Dist.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review.



In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court’s extra ordinary power of judicial review. A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record. The decision in this case is not irrational. [Paras 23 & 24]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative decisions - Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process.

A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact. [Paras 25 & 26]

The Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Sections 2A and 7(1) - Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of all communal lands, porambokes etc., in inam lands - Grant of Ryotwari Pattas - In this case relief under Article 226 was also liable to be refused on the grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence and/or omission of the appellants to assert their right, if any, within a reasonable time after the commencement of the 1956 Act. [Para 29]

Case Number : C.A. No. 7461 of 2009 14-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : K. Parameshwar
Respondent's Advocate : Guntur Prabhakar
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Previous Post Next Post