Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Sec. 306, 107 —Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023— Sec. 108 and 45 - FIRs registered—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sec. 482 —seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide —accusation of extortion, in the suicide note and was never complained of anywhere including the Privileges Committee -deceased who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, was forced to commit suicide—deceased was accused of stealing 10 grams of gold and committed the extreme act after 20 days- A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." — act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide- real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test -true test of mens rea ,depend on the facts of each case- "soon before" is a relative term depending on the circumstances of each case-a presumption was drawn on the dowry death of a woman, within 7 years of marriage, by the legislature-charge of abetment to commit suicide to be absent .
Held: ( Para 2,6,9,13,16,19,24, 28, 32,37,39,40)
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
Central Excise Act, 1944 —preferred against the concurrent findings of dismissal of discharge application by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Allahabad High Court in the criminal proceedings that were initiated under Section 9 and 9AA of CEA- no bar on the parallel proceedings with one being by the Department and the other being criminal in nature under the a reference to Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra) reveals that, as in the present case, there is no bar on parallel proceedings, with one being by the Respondent-Department and the other being criminal in nature, under the CEA 1944— the attempt of the Appellants to distinguish the said decision, is primarily reliant on the observation that the Complaint was solely based on the Order dated 31.03.2011, which, at the time had been set aside— held— Criminal Appeal preferred against the concurrent findings of dismissal of discharge application by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Allahabad High Court in the criminal proceedings that were initiated under Section 9 and 9AA of CEA.
Held: (Para 28-36)
Result: Dismissed
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — An FIR was lodged against the Appellants and other participants invoking Sec. 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act as the Appellants congregated together to conduct a rally by raising slogans against the-then Government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting student fee reimbursements- observation—none of the offences alleged against the appellants herein is made out, therefore, the judgments of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of paragraph 102, extracted above and Pepsico, squarely apply to the facts of these cases— neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue- held- that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 are not established- High Court erred in concluding that there were specific allegations against the appellants and that there were no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings, and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 482 CrPC on a completely misconceived basis- would have been appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court's process— appeals allowed and set-aside the impugned judgment-application under Section 482 of CrPC on the file of the High Court shall accordingly stand allowed.
Held:(Para 17-21)
Result: Appeal allowed
Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Criminal Appeal- Fiance's Murder- the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind- Criminal Appeals were filed by the accused persons, against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, by which their conviction was upheld for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—observation— The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached the middle age—Two out of the four accused persons were teenagers at the time of occurrence, while A-4 had barely crossed that phase. A-3 was a man aged 28 years, and was recently married with one child-we seek to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants who have committed a heinous crime, notwithstanding the availability of other alternative avenues to resolve the problems faced by A4- they have not been put to adverse notice thereafter- their conduct in the prison is also not adverse and they were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime- Held- The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others- Court said that the breakdown of social norms contributes to a deviant behaviour, especially when individuals lack clear moral guidance from their communities— mere punishment per se would not constitute a remedy for an act of crime- might change the offender's legal or social status, but would not be sufficient to address the root cause of his actions or remove the psychological and emotional factors that made him commit the crime- that A-4 was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem. Years have rolled on since the occurrence of the crime, which was in 2003"- it is difficult to decide at this stage who influenced the other, although there is a clear meeting of minds. In light of the same, the Court decided to facilitate the Appellants' right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate Petitions before the Governor of Karnataka- only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case- grant eight weeks' time from the date of this judgment, for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution-Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended- Appeals dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
Held: (Para 92-103)
Result: Appeals dismissed
Constitution of India, 1950 —Art. 227 — In 1988, Vindas (Respondent company) was set up for manufacturing injections and capsules of certain specified drugs- It was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Madhya Pradesh (M.P.)—Subsequently in 1990, the Appellant company (Torino) was incorporated with ROC, Maharashtra—However, the Appellant's factory was set up and business of production of tablets and later liquid syrups was set up in M.P. Vindas was incorporated under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act)— Subsequently, inspections were carried out at the Appellant's premises in 2005 and a communication was sent to deposit the provident fund contribution and administrative charges- Appellant opposed the applicability of the EPF Act on the ground that the workers/employees did not exceed the prescribed number-issue that was highlighted by the Department was about the number of employees exceeding 20— Civil Appeal preferred by a company, challenging the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which upheld the Order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal— observation- employer/management's own conduct in mixing up or not mixing up the capital, staff and management could in a given case be a significant pointer. Mere separate registration under the different statutes cannot be a basis to claim that the units are separate— Similarly, maintenance of separate accounts and independent financial statement is also not conclusive-onus lies on the employer/management to lead necessary evidence to bring home their contention—held— mere separate registration under different statutes cannot be a basis to claim that the units are separate- no hesitation in rejecting the submissions of the appellant that the authorities were not justified in seeking remittance of the dues from September 1995—Similarly, the contention of the appellant that notice of clubbing ought to have been issued to Vindas-respondent No.3 also lacks merit- rightly contended for the Authorities since the ultimate contribution was to be levied only for the respective employees of the units and since employees of Vindas-respondent No.3 were already covered for the period in question, there was no necessity for issuing notice to Vindas-respondent No.3.
Held: (Para 34-37)
Result: Appeal dismissedCases Referred:1. Associated Cement Companies Limited, Chaibassa Cement Works, Jhinkpani Vs.Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 56, 2. Honorary Secretary, South India Millowners' Association and Others Vs. The Secretary, Coimbatore Distruict Textile Workers' Union, [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 9263. L.N. Gadodia & Sons Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2011) 13 SCC 5174. L.N. Gadodia and Sons and Another Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2011) 13 SCC 5175. Management of Pratap Press, New Delhi Vs.Secretary, Delhi Press Workers' Union, Delhi and Another, AIR1960 SC 1213, 6. Management of Wenger and Co. Vs. Their Workmen, (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 8627. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1996) 9 SCC 454,8. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., (1998) 2 SCC 446 9. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., (1998) 2 SCC 446,10. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Naraini Udyog, (1996) 5 SCC 52211. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur Vs. Naraini Udyog and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 522,12. Regional Provident Fund Commr. Vs. Raj's Continental Exports (P) Ltd, (2007) 4 SCC 23913. Sayaji Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1984 Supp. SCC 610 14. Shree Vishal Printers Limited, Jaipur Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 508.15. Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner, (2019) 9 SCC 508 16. Sumangali Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (2008) 9 SCC 106
We feel pleasure to introduce ourselves as founder of the "Daily" reporter of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court Decisions, covering all the reportable, non-reportable judgments, Bail matters & important orders daily. The Journal "Apex-Decisions" is known for its prompt & complete reporting of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court judgments / orders every day since 1993.
Copyright © 2022 Apex Decisions Software, All rights Reserved. Designed By Techdost
