डीएनयु टाईम्स (कपिल बिरथरे, लीगल अपडेट)
⚖️लीगल अपडेट⚖️
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि सुरक्षा की दृष्टि से आभूषणों को अपने पास रखना भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 498ए के तहत क्रूरता नहीं हो सकता।
केस का नाम: दीपक शर्मा बनाम हरियाणा सरकार
साइटेशन: 2022 लाइव लॉ (एससी) 52
केस नं./ दिनांक: सीआरए 83/2022 | 12 जनवरी 2022
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6 [as substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.e.f. 9-9-2005] — Daughter’s right in coparcenary property under substituted S. 6 of the HS Act, 1956: Daughter born before date of enforcement of the 2005 Amendment Act, held, has same rights as daughter born on or after the amendment. Non-requirement of coparcener father to be alive on date of coming into force of the said amendment, explained. [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Maintainability of SLP: SLP against order dismissing review on merits, when original order is not challenged, not maintainable. Law summarized on the matter. [T.K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 92]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167(2) and S. 437 — Default bail/statutory bail under S. 167(2): Indefeasible right to default bail/statutory bail under S. 167(2), once statutory period expires, discussed. Condition(s) if may be imposed as: (A) precondition(s) to release on default bail, and (B) conditions post release on default bail for cooperation in investigation, reporting to police station, etc., explained. This contrasted with position obtaining in regard to regular bail under S. 437. [Saravanan v. State, (2020) 9 SCC 101]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 227 — Judicial Review — Exercise of Power — Limitations thereon: High Court purporting to take over role and function of Expert Committee, not permissible. When Government accepted decision of Expert Committee and no arbitrariness or settled vitiating ground was established thereagainst, held, High Court cannot venture to sit as an expert over and above Expert Committee, in absence of any arbitrariness or any other settled ground of interference in exercise of power of judicial review. [State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 108]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Stamp Act, 1899 — Ss. 40(1)(b) and 3 — Deficient stamp duty and penalty — Person who can be compelled to pay: Next purchaser or subsequent transferee of the property is liable to pay pending stamp duty and penalty. Furthermore, the same cannot be deposited through postdated cheque. [MSD Real Estate LLP v. Collector of Stamps, (2020) 9 SCC 113]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 207(v) & (iii) r/w provisos I and II & Ss. 173(5) and (6) — Supply to the accused of copy of police report and documents appended thereto: Magistrate can withhold only such document referred to in Cl. (v) of S. 207 which in his opinion is “voluminous”, and not for any other reason. In case of such voluminous document, however, accused can be permitted to take inspection of document concerned either personally or through his pleader in court. Thus, even if investigating officer appends his note in respect of any particular document regarding its exclusion from copies to be granted to accused, that will be of no avail as his power is limited to do so only in respect of statements referred to in S. 173(6) CrPC. [P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161]
⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 35 and 54 and Ss. 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C) — Search and seizure: In this case there was recovery of contraband (ganja) from a house and conviction of accused under Ss. 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C), was based on mere presumption of ownership of aforesaid house, without any finding of conscious possession of house with accused, so as to attribute presumption under NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of contraband. As the guilt of accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction was reversed. [Gangadhar v. State of M.P., (2020) 9 SCC 202]