10 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 22, 2019

1. Kumar Ghimirey v. The State of Sikkim

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 9 and 10 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 341 - the offence committed against the minor girl child (7 years) cannot be viewed lightly - Considering the serious nature of the offence the conviction of seven years RI need no interference in this appeal.


The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 386 - Powers of the Appellate Court.

As per Section 386 clause (b) of Cr.P.C. in an appeal from a conviction although the Appellate Court can alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. Under Section 386(b)(iii), in an appeal from a conviction, for enhancement of sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of enhancement. The Appellate Court in an appeal for enhancement, can enhance the sentence also. The proviso to Section 386, further, provids that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. [Para 11]



The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 307, 386, 390, 391 and 401 - Power of the High Court to enhance the sentence in an appropriate case.

There can be no doubt with regard to the power of the High Court to enhance the sentence in an appropriate case. The High Court can also exercise its power under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. provides for the power of revision to the High Court. The High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. can exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 of Cr.P.C. The High Court could have very well exercised power under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 386(b) (iii), could have enhanced the sentence but the said course is permissible only after giving notice of enhancement. [Para 12]

Referred Cases

  1. Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 (Supp) SCC 518
  2. Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 385
  3. Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 4 SCC 718
  4. Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bengali v. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand), (2002) 1 SCC 266
Facts of the Case

The appeal is partly allowed. The direction of the High Court in paragraph 25 of the judgment in sofaras it has enhanced sentence from seven years to 10 years RI is set aside. The sentence awarded by the Special Judge i.e. seven years under POCSO Act, 2012 and one month under Section 341 of IPC is maintained. The rest of judgment of the High Court is affirmed.



Case Number : Crl.A. No. 719 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Harinder Mohan Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Arputham Aruna and Co
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph


2. Sampada Yogesh Waghdhare v. The State of Maharashtra

The Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 - Section 44(1)(e) - Disqualification - If temporary construction or structure have been illegally made by the Councillor, spouse or dependent, disqualification follows.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4056 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Abha R. Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

3. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

The U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 - Nature and extent of liability of interest on Entry Tax under the scheme of Act, 2007.



Case Number : C.A. No. 3257 - 3268 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nishit Agrawal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

4. VST Industries Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

The U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 - This appeal is disposed of providing that no further recovery be affected against the 3 appellant towards the demand of interest on arrears of Entry Tax and recovery, if any, of the interest from the appellant shall be subject to the final outcome of the Writ-Tax No. 961 of 2018 filed by the appellant.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3256 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajan Narain
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

5. The State of Rajasthan v. Mukesh Sharma

The Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 - Rule 8(2)(i) - Constitutional Validity of.



Case Number : C.A. No. 3086 of 2016 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Milind Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Gaurav Agrawal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

6. Maars Software International Ltd. v. Union of India

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Sections 8, 16 (3) and 42 (1) - The Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 - Regulation 3 - The Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 - Regulation 9 

The appellants had filed material, which were marke A­38) in the case, with a view to show as to what steps they had taken to realize and repatriate the dues in question. Keeping in view the observations made by the High Court in Para 15, it is clear that the High Court did not examine the case of the parties in the context of material placed by the appellants, though the Tribunal in Para 29 of its order has considered the said material. The High Court should have taken into consideration the said material with a view to decide as to whether it was relevant or/and sufficient, and whether it could justify the appellants’ case as contemplated under Section 8 of FEMA. Instead, the High Court seemed to have proceeded on wrong assumption that since the appellants did not file any material, a case was made out against them. This observation of the High Court, in our view, was contrary to the record of the case and hence, interference in the impugned order is called for. The proper course in such a case would be to remand the case to the High Court and request the High Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4023 - 4025 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

7. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3 Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.

Tax Law - the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate as to what AO and CIT (Appeals) held and what was their reasoning which led to their respective conclusion. Having wrongly observed about their respective reasoning and the finding, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the case and eventually reversed the order of CIT (Appeals). The High court did not notice the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In such a situation like the one arising in the case and keeping in view the question involved, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal filed by the respondent-­Company (assessee) afresh on merits because the Tribunal being the last Court of appeal on facts, its finding on the question of fact is of significance.



Case Number : C.A. No. 4026 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

8. Anil Kumar Anand v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

The Customs Act, 1962 - The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Rule 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9Determination of the method of valuation - Transaction value of identical goods - Transaction value of similar goods - Deductive Value - Computed Value - Residual Method - Once the statutory Rules exist and provide for sequential implementation, the assessing authority has no option but to proceed in accordance with those Rules, in that manner.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3138 of 2018 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Punit Dutt Tyagi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

9. Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -  “compulsory retirement.”



Case Number : C.A. No. 4037 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kaustubh Anshuraj
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

10. Nand Kumar Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

The Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 - Rule 22 provides for the preparation of the Merit List on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by a candidate in the written examination as well as viva voce test. It provides that the Commission shall nominate such number of candidates from the merit list as may have been fixed by the Governor. There is no provision for maintaining a Wait List under the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. Hence, the appointment of the Appellants was wholly illegal and contrary to the statutory rules.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4020 - 4022 of 2019 22-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kaushik Poddar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Previous Post Next Post