IMPORTANT JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT 4 February, 2019
1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha @ Omprakash
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable.
The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven.
2. Federation Haj Ptos of India v. Union of India
Policy decisions of the Executive are best left to it and a court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Government policy. Public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing the policies. It is well accepted principle that in complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. Courts are illequipped to substitute their decisions. It is not within the realm of the courts to go into the issue as to whether there could have been a better policy and on that parameters direct the Executive to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which appears better to the court. Such an exercise is impermissible in policy matters.
The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the court would interfere with such policy decisions.
3. Ram Lal v. Salig Ram
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 75, Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) – If the Local Commissioner’s report was found wanting in compliance of applicable instructions for the purpose of demarcation, it was only a matter of irregularity and could have only resulted in discarding of such a report and requiring a fresh report but any such flaw, by itself, could have neither resulted in nullifying the order requiring appointment of Local Commissioner and for recording a finding after taking his report nor in dismissal of the suit.
Hence, we are unable to approve the approach of High Court, where after rejecting the Commissioner’s report, the High Court straightway proceeded to dismiss the suit. The plaintiffs have been asserting encroachment by the defendants on their land and have also adduced oral and documentary evidence in that regard. As noticed, the First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff not only with reference to the Commissioner’s report but also with reference to the other evidence of the parties. Unfortunately, the High Court appears to have overlooked the other evidence on record.