In absence of definite evidence, conviction not justified
This appeal is presented by the convicted accused questioning the Judgment and Order passed in Criminal Appeal by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench).
By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that Kavita (the victim) sustained 100% burn injuries at about 7.00 a.m. on 11.2.2013 while she was in her matrimonial house at village Javla Bazar, Tq. Basmath. Immediately thereafter, she was brought to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani wherein she succumbed to her injuries at 5.50 p.m. During the course of treatment, her Dying Declaration was recordrd at 3.10 p.m. in the hospital in which she implicated both accused.
As mentioned supra, the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted both the the accused.
Hon’ble N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., have held that in absence of definite evidence, conviction not justified.
Sow. Chhaya v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (189) AIC 17 SC
Failure to submit bank guarantee to result in cancellation of bail
The appellants in all three cases have approached this Court challenging the correctness of the view taken by the High Court. Similar such petitions have also been filed by other persons. Leading the submissions on behalf of said persons including the appellant, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate submitted:
(a) The order passed by this Court did not contemplate furnishing of bank guarantee or keeping the bank guarantee alive in the sum equivalent to the alleged “defalcated sum.”
(b) The bank guarantee was in terms of the stipulations contemplated by the agreement. Only such bank guarantee was to be furnished and kept alive.
(c) In cases where concerned millers had pledged their properties, the interest of the corporation was well secured and there could not be insistence on furnishing of bank guarantee by way of additional security.
Hon’ble A.M. Sapre and U.U. Lalit, JJ., have held that the aforesaid three criminal appeals, the facts whereof are discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs show that there were three categories of matters. In the first, the miller was to give bank guarantee equivalent to the value of paddy. However in case of his inability to furnish such bank guarantee, the facility of pledging unencumbered immovable property was afforded to him. The miller was however required to provide minimum bank guarantee. In the second matter, the bank guarantee had to be given in respect of value of paddy. Here also an option was given to pledge immovable property in lieu of the requirement of furnishing of bank guarantee. Though there appears to be slight distinction in phraseology employed in the concerned clauses, the intent appears to be identical. It is also a matter of record that the appellant in the second matter had pledged his land value at Rs. 1.3 crores and was not required to furnish any bank guarantee. In the third matter, there was no requirement of furnishing any bank guarantee at all and all that the agreement insisted upon was furnishing of security.
The requirement of furnishing bank guarantee was thus not mandatory and an option was given to the miller to pledge his unencumbered immovable property.
The matters therefore lie in a short compass. The order granting anticipatory bail/bail to the millers was challenged by the State/Corporation in matters which came up before this Court on 28.2.2017. While declining to cancel such orders granting anticipatory bails/bail, this Court deemed it proper to impose certain additional conditions. The first condition was that, in all FIRs the concerned accused would ensure that bank guarantee was furnished and kept alive, failing which, the benefit of anticipatory bails/bail would stand cancelled. The reference to “Bank Guarantee” in said condition No.1 was to the obligation arising from the agreement entered into with each of the accused.
The idea behind requirement of furnishing bank guarantee and or pledge of unencumbered property was to ensure sufficient security in the hands of the Corporation. Going by the terms of the agreement, in case there be any failure on part of the concerned miller to discharge his obligations, the Corporation would certainly be entitled and justified to take appropriate steps to secure its interest either by encashing the bank guarantee and or by disposing the pledged properties in accordance with law. We therefore accept the submission and hold that the Corporation, in such cases, would be well within its rights to take appropriate steps in the concerned matters.
Arvind Tiwary v. State of Bihar,2018 (189) AIC 34 SC
If protection under Rent Act available, no eviction can be ordered
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 29.3.2016 in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 586 of 2016 as well as against the order in Review Petition No. 89 of 2016 in said Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 586 of 2016 passed by the high court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai.
Hon’ble A.M. Sapre and U.U.Lalit, JJ., have held that the appellants preferred a review petition which was rejected by the High Court on 2.12.2016. This appeal challenges the correctness of both the orders passed by the High Court. We heard Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent.
The order passed by the Appellate Court shows that compromise Exh. P-11 was brought about that is even before the eviction petition was filed by the respondent. Further, said compromise Exh. P-11 was addressed to the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch. The Appellant Court had further observed that complaint Exh. P-10 and compromise Exh. P-11 were not disputed by the respondent and no document in rebuttal was filed. The complaint (Exh. P-10) proceeds on a premise that the lease deed was a forged document and there was no relationship of landlord –tenant between the parties. Yet an eviction petition was filed, seeking eviction of the appellants under the concerned Rent Act. There is an inherent contradiction in the stand adopted by the respondent. In the circumstances, the assertion made by the appellants that pressure was exerted through the police and they were compelled to enter into compromise in prima facie acceptable.
The common thread that runs through the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court is – in cases where protection under a Rent Act is available, no eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise. Moreover, the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution. In the present case, the order dated 28.3.2014 did not remotely note that any particular ground under the rent act was made out.
In the circumstances , in our considered view, the order passed by the Appellant Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference on part of the High Court. We, therefore, allow the present appeals and restore the order passed by the Appellant Court in IA No. 465 of 2015. The appeal shall now be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law. Since there was delay of more than 600 days on part of the appellants, we direct that the appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 50000/- to the respondent which shall be over and above that already imposed by the Appellant Court and shall be made over within six weeks from the Judgment. The appeals stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Alagu Pharmacy v. N Manudeswari, 2018 (189) AIC 57 SC