Important Supreme Court of India Judgment january 24, 2019

Important Supreme Court of India Judgment january 24, 2019

1. Dev Wati v. State of Haryana

Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 319 (1) – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence, though not accused before the Court. 
 
Referred to: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 [Constitution Bench
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 134 of 2019 24-01-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : P.I. Jose
Respondent’s Advocate : Sanjay Kumar Visen
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
2. Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd.
Customs Act, 1962 – Ss. 112 (a), 114AA & 125 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – S. 11 (8) & (9) – Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 – R. 17 (2) – Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 – Rule 15(1)(2) – Multi­-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs) – Violation of the Foreign Trade Policy – Redemption Fine – Consignment released for Re-­export only – Penalty was imposed on the Directors – The Multi­-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs) were not prohibited but restricted items for import.
 
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 – Rule 3(1)(23) & 15 – “other wastes” – Multi­-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) (MFDs).

3. Munishamappa v. State of Karnataka

Penal Code 1860 – Ss. 143, 148, 323, 324 & 302 r/w. 149 – Explosive Substances Act 1908 – Ss. 3, 4 and 5.

Penal Code 1860 – S. 149 – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object– Once a common object of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not necessary that all persons who form the unlawful assembly must be demonstrated to have committed the overt act. The common object is ascertained from considering the acts of its members and on the basis of all surrounding circumstances.

 

Petitioner’s Advocate : T. Harish Kumar
Respondent’s Advocate : Somiran Sharma
Bench : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud