The Supreme Court re-opened on June 29 after the summer break. A total of twenty-nine judgments were pronounced on the first day alone. Below is a summary of some of the important judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court in the last week..1. Compliance with Section 42 and 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is essential.State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa.Bench: Justice AM Sapre, Justice Ashok Bhushan.Date: June 29, 2016.This was an appeal filed by Rajasthan against acquittal of persons accused of offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)..Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down the conditions to be complied for entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. Section 50 lays down the conditions under which search of persons is to be conducted..Relying on decisions rendered by a Constitution Bench earlier, the Court reiterated that compliance with requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is essential..“The present is not a case where insofar as compliance of Section 42(1) proviso even an arguments based on substantial compliance is raised there is total non-compliance of Section 42(1) proviso. As observed above, Section 43 being not attracted search was to be conducted after complying the provisions of Section 42. .We thus, conclude that the High Court has rightly held that non-compliance of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) were proved on the record and the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the conviction order.”.It, therefore, dismissed the State’s appeal..Read the full judgment here..2. Inability to establish the motive need not necessarily cause entire failure of prosecution.Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of Maharashtra.Bench: Justice AM Sapre, Justice Ashok Bhushan.Date: June 29, 2016.This was an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court judgment affirming the conviction of the accused for murder. The accused was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence and there were no eye witnesses. It was his contention that the prosecution had not been able to prove any motive..The court, however, held that the sufficient evidence was led to complete the chain of events and link the accused to the crime. Regarding the contention of absence of motive, the Court endorsed the observations of the High Court which it reproduced as follows:.“Although prosecution is not very certain about the motive, upon taking into consideration the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, a faint probability is created, regarding intentions of the accused to lay hands on the cash which could have been in possession of the victim, as against the initial story that the accused was enraged against the victim, because the victim used to tease him on the point of his marriage with a bar girl Helen Fernandes.. Motive is a mental state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of the brain of the accused and inability of the prosecution to establish the motive need not necessarily cause entire failure of prosecution.”.The appeal was dismissed..Read the full judgment here..3. Courts cannot issues writ for remission of convicts,.Tara Singh v. Union of India.Bench: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.Date: June 29, 2016.In a petition filed by convicts sentenced to imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court reiterated that the power of remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not absolute and can be subject to statutory restrictions. The Court also held that no writ of Mandamus can be issued by the Court to grant remission to convicts..The petitioners, who had sought remission of sentence under Chapter XIX of the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 were denied the same since Section 32A of the NDPS Act barred such entitlement. The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court on the ground that remission can be granted by the court under Article 32..The Court discussed the law relating to remissions in the backdrop of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, Sections 432 and 433A of the CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution..“The argument that when a pardon or remission can be given under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution by the constitutional authority, this Court can exercise the similar power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is absolutely based on an erroneous premise. Article 32, as has been interpreted and stated by the Constitution Bench and well settled in law, can be only invoked when there is violation of any fundamental right or where the Court takes up certain grievance which falls in the realm of public interest litigation.”.It, therefore, dismissed the petition..Read the full judgment here..4. Duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate entire evidence.Union of India v. KV Lakshman & Ors. .Bench: Justice AM Sapre, Justice Ashok Bhushan.Date: June 29, 2016.A case concerning ownership of land where the Union of India had claimed ownership and filed a suit for declaration of ownership. The said suit was dismissed whereupon the appellant had filed an appeal in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine but gave a judgment running upto 50 pages. The Union government then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court held that a right to first appeal is a valuable legal right and the jurisdiction of the first appellate court is very wide like a trial court..“It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court.”.It therefore, held that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in limine but had to appreciate the entire evidence by hearing both the parties. The civil court was directed to retry the suit on merits..Read the full judgment here..5. Accused who was not a juvenile under JJ Act, 1986 will get the benefit of juvenility for sentencing under JJ Act, 2000.Mumtaz @ Muntyaz v. State of UP.Bench: Justice UU Lalit, Justice V Gopala Gowda.Date: July 1, 2016.The question that arose for consideration in this case pertained to the sentencing of an accused who was not a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. However, he got the benefit of juvenility with the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000..The accused was above 16 years at the time of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force at the time of commission of offence. Since he was above the age of juvenility at the time of commission of offence, he was tried as an adult and convicted by the trial court. While the appeal against his conviction and sentence was pending, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force. The 2000 Act raised the age of juvenility from 16 to 18 years and in terms of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, the determination of juvenility was required to be done in all pending matters in accordance with Section 2(1) of the 2000 Act..The issue which was considered was what happens to the proceedings in the case. Relying on earlier decisions the Court held that the proceedings would continue and be taken to its conclusion but the trial court will refrain from passing any sentence. Instead, it will have to send the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for appropriate orders..“It is thus well settled that in terms of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the Court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the Court would not pass an order of sentence against him but the juvenile would be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused and remitted the matter to the JJB for sentencing..Read the full judgment here.
