August 2017

LawLaw Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a Statute, a Statue, or a Statement. Legislation is the rule-making process by a political or religious organisation. Physics governs natural law. Logical thinking is a sign of a healthy brain function. Dharma is eternal for Sanatanis. Library

Rajkishore Purohit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [01.08.2017] Coram: Ranjan Gogoi & Navin Sinha, JJ.

Criminal Appeal by SLP-Section 302/34 IPC & 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act– Common Intention-Appeal against acquittal by the brother of the deceased- Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible to read a person’s mind. There can hardly be direct evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 of common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behavior in the facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and during the occurrence, are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. There can be no straight jacket formula. The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common intention-

Article 136 of the Constitution-Though this Court, in exercise of discretionary jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. under Article 136 of the Constitution, may not interfere with an order of acquittal, reversing a conviction, yet if it finds that the High Court has completely erred in appreciation of evidence, has applied the wrong principles to negate common intention, and has based its conclusions on speculative reasoning, beyond the defence of the accused himself, justice will demand that the acquittal is reversed.

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. M. Sivamani [01.08.2017] Coram: Adarsh Kumar Goel & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.

whether there is non-compliance of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC in court taking cognizance of the offence in question , i.e. Section 182 IPC

Criminal -Appeal against HC quashed the proceedings-False Motor Accident ClaimA Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based.-under Sections 120-B r/w 182, 420, 468, 468 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 511 IPC-Section 195(1) CrPC -While the bar against cognizance of a specified offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not intended to take away remedy against a crimeCrime A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the state classified either as a felony or misdemeanor. but only to protect an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a private person. The expression “the public servant or his administrative superior” cannot exclude the High Court. It is clearly implicit in the direction of the High Court quoted above that it was necessary in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the offence in question. Direction of the High Court is at par with the direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement. The protection intended by the Section against a private person filing a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 to such a situation. Once the High Court directs investigationInvestigation Purpose of all investigation is to reveal the unvarnished truth. The constitutional courts are duty bound to ensure that the truth is revealed. into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service. The view taken by the High Court will frustrate the object of law and cannot be sustained.

Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital & Research Centre vs. Union of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more & Anr. [01.08.2017]
Coram: Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy & A. M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

IQ City Foundation & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [01.08.2017] Coram: Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy & A. M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Article 32-Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-writ of certiorari-On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the Regulations, as has been referred to in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra), it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson’s eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand, we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons makes the decision sensitively susceptible.