Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 19(1)(a) — Case Of Defamation— Magistrate did not conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons, despite the Appellant residing outside its jurisdiction- complaint relied on self-estimation of reputational damage without any third-party evidence— held- necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under is paramount- it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinion- power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed- appeals allowed and impugned order passed by the High Court is quashed and also summoning orders as well as the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as far as the appellants herein are concerned- merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director- APPEAL ALLOWED
Held: (Para 19-22)
Result: Appeal allowed
Appeal against impugned Judgment- High Court refuse the quash criminal proceedings initiated against the accused- Illegal gratification—fishing contracts— Tender process— government policy is not followed— observation- tendering process is a mandate only in reservoirs outside the tribal areas, with provision for reservations and relaxation in so far as tribals and societies - do not find any enquiry having been carried out as to the location or area of the various reservoirs for which the grant is made- even if the grants have been made, all in non-tribal areas, even then the ingredients of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act is absent- here is not even an iota of material available from the investigation report, the pre-charge statements recorded from the complainant or the police officers or even the statements of persons questioned by the investigation team, as available in the report, to attract the ingredients of the provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act— held-discharge application of the appellant ought to have been allowed by the Special Court especially since there is not even an allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, by the second accused/appellant- No Presumption Of Corruption Due To Misuse Of Authority If There's No Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe- appeal allowed
Held: (Para 21-26)
Result: Appeal allowed
Evidence Act— Sec. 114 — Mistaken identification—observation— the absence of this evidence and especially due to delay of four years in the recovery of the property the very basis of its identification is found shattered, and the possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out. With this finding of the Trial Court, invocation of Section 114 — Evidence Act is not at all permissible since the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden- held- appeals preferred by the appellant/accused no. 3 allowed- conviction and sentence is set aside- the seized gold bars were recovered from the appellant he is entitled to the possession - the seized gold bars-be handed over to the appellant- identity of the seized property being the stolen property has not been established- Bank is not entitled to the possession of the seized gold- Criminal Appeal preferred by Bank stands dismissed.
Held: (Para 32-39)
Result: Disposed of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sec. 304-B, 498-A , 34, 30 —Dowry death- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention- "Valuable security"-Section 113-B—Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Presumption as to dowry death.-. Section 2 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Dowry means-Prosecution did not prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B—Impugned judgment set aside— Appeal allowed.
Held: (Paras- 5,8,9,10,12,16)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Sec. 366(A),302,201,34 —- Procuration of minor girl-Murder defin— Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender-Act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention- Section 313 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -Power to examine the accused- Sections 25 and 26, 27— Evidence Act, 1872- Confession to police-officer not to be proved- Confession by accused while in custody of Police not to be proved against him- How much of information received from accused may be proved-Postmortem report has also ruled out recent sexual activity of the deceased-No recovery of cash allegedly taken away by the deceased from her residence makes the prosecution narrative all the more suspect-Prosecution failed to prove each of the circumstances against the appellant, not justified in convicting the appellant-Impugned judgment set aside— Appeal allowed.
Held: (Paras- 4,9,10,12,18,19,20, 25,29,34,39,43,47,49,50,52)
Result: Appeal allowed.
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
