Law 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 evidence 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 jurisdiction 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 Claim-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 crime 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 investigation 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 India & 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.
©Advocatetanmoy Law library
