Important Supreme Court Cases Judgement October 30, 2018

Important Supreme Court Cases Judgement October 30, 2018

1. Jai Bhagwan v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi)

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 193, 195, 211 & 376 (2) (g) – Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 340 – Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 – the High Court has not recorded a finding that “it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences punishable under Sections 193 and 195 IPC against the police officials and under Section 211 IPC against the prosecutrix”. Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the police officials and based on the materials produced before the appellate court, the High Court was not right in issuing direction to the Registrar General to lodge a complaint against the police officials and the said direction is liable to be set aside.

2. State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 13(1)(c)(d)(e) r/w. 13(2) – Principles of “double jeopardy” Even before commencement of trial, the accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction, there was no impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction. Unless there is failure of justice on account of error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction for prosecution, the proceedings under the Act could not be vitiated. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice is caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of “double jeopardy”.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

3. Management Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Sharma

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 10 & 11A – the respondent was a casual worker and hardly worked for one year – In a case of this nature, and having regard to the fact that many decades had passed in between with no evidence adduced by the respondent that whether he was gainfully employed from 1977 onwards or not, the Labour Court should have awarded lump sum money compensation to the respondent in lieu of the relief of reinstatement along with payment of back wages and continuity of service by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11­A of the Act, rather than to direct 5 his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. In other words, having regard to the peculiar nature of the respondent’s appointment and rendering of services by him for a very short duration (just 240 days only) and with no evidence as to whether he worked for gains or not after his services came to an end in 1977, this was a fit case where the Labour Court should have awarded lump sum compensation to the respondent instead of directing his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. The Labour Court was empowered to pass such order by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11­A of the Act.


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});