Siddharthshankar Sharma Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) The grievance of the petitioner that he was denied the facility of a vaccination for failure to produce an Aadhar card has also been dealt with in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed a […]
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arose only if the charge-sheet had not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Held: In the instant case, investigation was directed to be conducted into the […]
Shiv Developers Vs Aksharay Developers (Supreme Court) As noticed, the crucial and key factor in the present case remains that the sale transaction in question is not arising out of the business of the appellant firm. Equally significant fact is that the subject suit is for enforcing a right of avoidance of a document on […]
Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Supreme Court) The Supreme Court while reversing the High Court’s Order has ruled that the assessee can adjust Income Tax paid under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 with tax payable if his application was rejected. The assessee made a declaration of an undisclosed income of a certain […]
There are three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. We find PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. There is also no delay in the registration of the FIR. PW-3 though turned hostile, spoke about the incident in his chief examination. Strangely, in the cross examination he turned turtle, while disputing the very factum of his chief examination made before the court. The view of the courts on this witness also deserves to be accepted.
It is noted that the dying declaration was made by the deceased to Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Bal Kishan Agarwal, who was also examined as a prosecution witness (PW6) before the Trial Court. His statement reveals that the deceased at the time of making the statements, was fully conscious and capable of comprehending the questions put forth by the officer to whom the declaration was made. The evidentiary value of the dying declaration is further enhanced by the fact that it was accompanied by a certificate from the physician who was treating the deceased prior to her death, stating that the deceased remained fully conscious while making the statement.
The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere ‘disobedience’ but ‘wilful’ and ‘conscious’.
Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners produced fake and fabricated documents, that has not caused any wrongful loss to the Government. Hence, this Court is of the view that a registration of crime and conducting investigation are abuse of process of law and, hence, the proceedings in the crime are liable to be quashed.
SC is of the view that appellant cannot be indefinitely detained in custody more so having already spent almost 50% of possible maximum sentence in alleged GST Evasion case of Rs. 64Cr.
The only requirement of law, for such process of decision making by the tender inviting authority, is that it should not be suffering from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. No such case being made out, the decision of the tender inviting authority (NVS) in the present case was not required to be interfered with on the reasoning that according to the writ Court, the product ‘Smart Phone’ ought to be taken as being of similar category as the product ‘Tablet’.
