1."Supreme Court: Investigating Officer Must Narrate Accused's Statement for S.27 Evidence Act Proof; Mere Exhibit of Memorandum Insufficient."
The Supreme Court clarified that disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are admissible only if they lead to discovering new facts. Referring to past cases Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 2022 and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022, the Court emphasized that merely exhibiting these statements during trial doesn't prove their contents. In a recent case, the Court found insufficient details in the investigating officer's recording of the accused's statements, rendering them inadmissible and any recoveries based on them legally invalid.
2."Supreme Court: Magistrate's Cognizance of Additional Materials with Protest Petition Requires Case to Proceed as Private Complaint"
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of both the High Court and the Trial Court, emphasizing that when a Magistrate issues a summons to an accused following a protest petition contesting a police report, this should be treated akin to a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma's bench highlighted the importance of following the procedures outlined in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. in such instances, establishing a clear framework for handling cases where additional evidence via protest petitions leads to the summoning of accused individuals.
3. For Establishing Offence of Filing Delayed ITR, “Mens Rea” Is A Necessary Ingredient: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the importance of mens rea in convicting an assesses for filing delayed income tax returns under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand's bench held that without mens rea, an accused cannot be found guilty, resulting in the acquittal of an assesses penalized for late filing due to the absence of intent to commit the offence.
4. NIA Act | Court of Sessions Has Jurisdiction to Try UAPA Cases When State Hasn't Designated Any Special Court: Supreme Court
Justice Sandeep Mehta's judgment upheld UAPA proceedings initiated by Sessions Courts despite no special court designation by the state government. Initially challenged and quashed by the High Court, the Supreme Court clarified that Sessions Courts have jurisdiction to try UAPA cases when no special court is designated as per the NIA Act. This ruling aligns with Section 22 of the NIA Act, granting Sessions Courts the authority to handle such cases without a designated special court by the state government.
5. Sessions Court Can Take Cognizance Against Accused Not Yet Charge Sheeted Without Waiting till Stage of S.319 CrPC: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition while noting an irregularity by the Additional Sessions Judge in re-taking cognizance of six accused already charged by the Magistrate. The Court ruled this irregularity didn't invalidate proceedings under Section 461 CrPC. The judgment clarified that the Sessions Court could take cognizance against the uncharged accused without waiting for Section 319 CrPC stages, affirming the Additional Sessions Court's jurisdiction post-committal by the Magistrate.
6. Article 226 | Delay Defeats Equity, HC Should Dismiss Writ Petition If Petitioner Is Guilty Of Delay Or Laches: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reviewed a case involving an LPG distributor challenging a High Court decision. The High Court had allowed an alternate bidder to appeal after a four-year delay, which led to the reversal of a decision allowing the distributor to construct facilities on alternative land. Emphasizing the importance of timeliness in Article 226 petitions, the Supreme Court cautioned against granting extraordinary relief to petitioners who delay seeking recourse, overturning the High Court's decision due to unexplained delays.
7."CESTAT Hyderabad Bench: Smuggling Intent Not Equivalent to Prohibited Goods Export Attempt"
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Hyderabad has ruled that having the intention to smuggle prohibited goods does not constitute an attempt to export them. The tribunal, comprising Anil Choudhary and A.K. Jyotishi, noted that the appellant was stopped by CISF officials outside the customs area and had not approached the airline counter or made any declaration as required by law. Therefore, specific provisions of the Customs Act were deemed inapplicable in this case.
8. Manipur Tribal Forum Approaches Supreme Court Raising Apprehensions Of Fresh Outbreak Of Violence, Seeks Army Protection
The Manipur Tribal Forum has filed an interim application with the Supreme Court, seeking protection for the Kuki-Zo community in Manipur from potential violence. They allege neglect by authorities and call for the arrest of leaders inciting unrest. This follows concerns raised by a Court-appointed Committee led by Justice Gita Mittal regarding escalating violence in the state.
9. Supreme Court Says Stricter Punishments Needed For Election Manipulations & Misconduct By Polling Officers
The Supreme Court discussed EVM-VVPAT verification petitions and raised concerns about insufficient penalties for electoral misconduct. Justices highlighted the need for harsher penalties but said Parliament has jurisdiction over such matters. During the hearing, Justice Khanna asked about VVPAT calibration and security measures against tampering. Singh mentioned the IPC and RPA sections for EVM tampering penalties. Justice Khanna noted the limited punishment under IPC Section 177 for addressing serious electoral malpractices.
10. Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From 2 NCDRC Members For Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants Ignoring SC's Interim Protection Datics Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court's recent notices to two NCDRC members reflect its commitment to holding legal authorities accountable for disregarding its orders. This follows a pattern seen last year with NCLAT members. The Court stressed its March 1 interim order against coercive actions on the company directors and temporarily suspended NCDRC's orders to maintain legal integrity.
