&ulplqdo/dz5hylhz &u/5 $5hvhdufk2ujdqlvdwlrq

Ratio Obiter A Fortnightly Newsletter By Criminal Law Review

Issue 4, Sept 2020

06.09.2020

Criminal Law Review (CrLR) | A Research Organisation

Contributors:

Kirti Bhushan

Khushi Kerur

Yashasvee Kumar

Shailee Mishra

Editing Team:

Haritima Kavia

Hunar Malik

http://www.crlreview.in/

Content

About Us

About ‘Ratio Obiter’

From the Desk of the Founder

Snippets

Supreme Court

Kerala High Court

Gujarat High Court

Allahabad High Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Bombay High Court

Delhi High Court

Karnataka High Court

Rajasthan High Court

Madras High Court

Guwahati High Court

Jharkhand High Court

Legal Maxim of the Fortnight

This Day in History

Fun Facts

Ratio Obiter | Issue 4 © 2020 Criminal Law Review (CrLR). All rights reserved.

About Us

Criminal Law Review (the ‘CrLR’), is a research organization founded by Ashwani

Kumar Singh. Though the CrLR started as a criminal law blog in Jan 2018, later on (in

the beginning of 2020) we started working to establish the CrLR as a research

organization. CrLR is incubated by the GNLU Legal Incubation Centre (GLIC).

The CrLR takes up several research projects, runs a blog and conducts various events

with an aim to promote legal writing and research and to assist legal fraternity in the

field of criminal law. As a research organisation, the CrLR provides an effective

platform to credible and comprehensive research work that deals with the intricacies

and nuances of criminal law.

About ‘Ratio Obiter’

The Ratio Obiter is a fortnightly newsletter to keep the legal community updated about

the recent happenings with regards to criminal law. The prime objective behind the

inception of this idea is to spark contemporary and insightful discussions in the realm

of criminal law. The CrLR team along with the interns efficiently works in selecting

content and editing process to put out only the best content.

The newsletter would consist of brief updates on select judgements of the Supreme

Court and High Court of India, recent blog posts, important legal news and snippets of

SC judgements among others.

REGISTER FOR ‘Criminal Law Review National Writing Competition, 2nd ed.’

All Rights Reserved.

http://crlreview.in/

http://crlreview.in/

http://crlreview.in/blog

http://crlreview.in/newsletter

https://crlreview.in/criminal-law-review-national-writing-competition-2nd-edition/


4

From the Desk of the Founder

As our tagline suggests, the primary goal behind every activity of the CrLR is to assist

Legal Fraternity in Criminal Law in different ways possible. The Ratio Obiter, our

fortnightly newsletter, runs on the similar lines by keeping you updated.

The Second Issue of the Ratio Obiter has been made possible majorly by the efforts of

our Interns, and our Team is thankful to all of them – Kirti Bhushan (2019-22, Campus

Law Centre, DU), Shailee Mishra (2018-23, University of Allahabad), Yashasvee Kumar

(2018-23, JGLS) and Khushi Kerur (2018-23, SLS, Hyderabad).

If you are interested in contributing, reach to us at [email protected] or +91-

7434045410 or any of our social media pages. We would be happy to hear any feedback /

suggestion from your end, please do get in touch.

~

Ashwani Kumar Singh, Founder & M.D.

E: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Snippets

Criteria for Granting Post-Conviction Bail

In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there

is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise.

Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there

is conviction upon trial. Rather, the Court considering an application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of

the appeal, coupled with other factors.

There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an

order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling

reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1)

of the Cr.P.C.

Vide: Preet Lal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Crl A. 520/2020

Power to Interfere with Concurrent Findings in exercise of Art 136

Normally this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution does not interfere with concurrent findings of facts delving

into appreciation of evidence.

However, concerning the liberty of the individual, if the Court is satisfied that the

prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case, the evidence led was wholly

insufficient and there has been gross misappreciation of evidence by the courts

below bordering on perversity, this Court shall not be inhibited in protecting the

liberty of the individual

Vide: Gangadhar v State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl A. 504/2020

Circumstantial Evidence

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon

by the prosecution should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and such proved

circumstances should form a complete chain so as not to leave any doubt in the

mind of the Court about the complicity of the accused.

Vide: Umesh Tukaram Padwal v. State of Maharashtra


Supreme Court

1. Preet Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 520 of

2020]

1.1. Keywords: Dowry Death, Bail post-conviction, Section 439 CrPC, Section 389 CrPC,

Quashing Bail Order, Appeal, Dowry Prohibition Act.

1.2. The Respondent no. 2 filed an appeal against the sentence awarded by the

Sessions Court for the offences specified under sections 498A, 304B, 406 of IPC

and 3 & 4 of the DPA, 1961 and meanwhile he filed a bail application pending the

hearing of the appeal and he was released on bail.

1.3. The victim’s family challenged the said release of the Respondent no. 2 on bail

before the Apex Court.

1.4. The Court, after taking into consideration facts of the case and finding of the

Sessions Court, set aside the bail bonds and directed Respondent no. 2 to

surrender for being taken into custody.

1.5. Observation mentioned in Snippets

2. Rhea Chakraborty v. The State of Bihar & ors. [Transfer Petition (Criminal.) No.

225 of 2020]

2.1. Keywords: Transfer Petition, CBI, Section 406 CrPC, Sushant Singh Rajput, Suicide,

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Article 142.

2.2. The Petitioner moved the Supreme Court through a transfer petition for

transferring the FIR filed at Patna to Mumbai.

2.3. The Court, after considering the submissions of all the parties, invoked the

plenary powers provided under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to

approve the ongoing CBI investigation and directed the CBI to investigate if any

other new case is registered on the death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput and

the surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death as there are many

allegations from both sides regarding political pressure on the police of the

respective States.

Kerala High Court

3. State Of Kerala vs Ramesh [Crl.MC.No. 2739 of 2020(B)]


3.1. Keywords: History Sheeters, Criminal Antecedents, Bail Cancellation, Arms Act.

3.2. The State of Kerala challenged the bail granted to the accused no. 1 to 4 as they

were taken into custody after recovery of arms from the car of the 8th accused.

The State submitted that the accused having previously committed heinous

offences under POCSO and the Scheduled Tribes Act, thereby, are history

sheeters and can abscond if released on bail.

3.3. The Court, after analysing the history of the accused and the bail granted by the

Learned Magistrate solely on the basis of the custody undergone by the accused

without having any reference to the accused’s criminal history, quashed the said

bail order.

Gujarat High Court

4. Kajalben D/O Naginbhai Harmanbhai Harijan V. The State of Gujarat [R/Special

Criminal Application No. 3705 Of 2020]

4.1. Keywords: Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, Article 226, Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Act, Rape, Pregnancy.

4.2. The Petitioner is a victim of the heinous offence of rape and has filed the present

petition to terminate the pregnancy, if medically feasible, which occurred due to

her being raped.

4.3. The medical opinion of the authorities, who examined the petitioner-victim’s

physical state, was the non-feasibility of the termination of her pregnancy.

4.4. The Court then dismissed the petition, keeping in mind the opinion of the medical

experts and Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, stating that the termination

of her pregnancy is not in her best interest.

5. Jaiminiben w/o Himanshubhai Jayantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [R/Criminal

Misc.Application No. 11855 Of 2020]

5.1. Keywords: Quashing FIR, Section 482, CrPC, Inherent Powers, Settlement.

5.2. The applicant filed an application under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of

the FIR against him under sections 323/294(b) of the IPC, 1860 and other

consequential proceedings as there has been an amicable settlement reached

between the parties.


5.3. The High Court, after taking into consideration that the offences are minor

offences as well as the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh

and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014), quashed the F.I.R and all other

consequential proceedings registered against the applicant.

Allahabad High Court

6. Pratap v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail

Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 4583 Of 2020]

6.1. Keywords: Section 438 Cr.P.C., Bail, Investigation, Rape, False Implication, Delay in

lodging FIR.

6.2. The petitioner filed an application of anticipatory bail citing him being falsely

implicated for the offences under sections 323, 328, 342, 504, 506, 376D, 120B of

the IPC by the prosecution.

6.3. The Court, after analysing the facts of the case and the delay of five months in

lodging the FIR, granted the petitioner anticipatory bail till the submission of

police report under section 173 (2) of the CrPC before the competent Court on his

furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station

concerned.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

7. Gagan vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

7.1. Keywords: FIR, Parity, co-convicts.

7.2. The bench said that the convict "cannot claim parity with his co-convicts in the

FIR" for the "role played by each accused in the crime cannot be exactly identical".

Justice Madaan asserted the reason that the role played by each accused in the

crime cannot be exactly identical.

8. Robin Sharma vs. State of Punjab, Rajnish Sharma vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-

No. 13861-2020, CRM-M-No. 13870-2020)

8.1. Keywords: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 of Cr.P.C, Information

Technology Act, Indian Penal Code.


8.2. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana asserted that if complainant discloses

commission of cognizable offence then the police is expected to take prompt

action for registration of FIR and investigation of the case.

8.3. The bench asserted that the complainant/victim of a crime may accordingly apply

to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offence.

The complainant/victim of a crime may also file complaint under section 166A

(b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer for knowingly disobeying any

direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such

investigation.

9. Sandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-22567-2020)

9.1. Keywords: FIR, IPC, Disaster and Management Act, 2005, Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984.

9.2. In this case, an anticipatory bail plea filed by a person accused of being part of a

protest by a group of patients against a doctor. The judge directed the

Investigating Officer to record the statement of the doctor and to conduct a Test

Identification Parade. The prayer of the petitioner seeking concession of pre-arrest

bail was not accepted by the High Court.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

10. Nasreen Shama vs. CBI (CRM(M) No. 178/2020)

10.1. Keywords- FIR, Charge sheet, S.482 of Cr.P.C.

10.2. In this case, in this instant petition, it is claimed that the respondent CBI, ACB,

Jammu, had filed two charge sheets against the petitioners arising out of two

different FIRs for the same case by the same person hence, this case is filed under

S.482 of Cr.P.C

10.3. The importance of FIR was stated, and it was noted that “it is the very material

document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built”.

10.4. It was also stated that it is on the court to examine and rationalize the facts and

circumstances and understand the “sameness” of the FIRs.

10.5. It was understood that there were differences between the two FIRs and hence, the

grievance of the petitioner was put aside as hallow and lack of substance thereof.


11. Mir Aamir Ali vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (CM No. 3101/2020 in

WP(C) No. 1229/2020)

11.1. Keywords- Jurisdiction, Article 370.

11.2. In this writ petition, there was an objection raised as to the maintainability of the

writ petition as in the context of abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution of

India.

11.3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the changes therebefore will not take

away the jurisdiction of this court citing previous cases. (L.Chandra Kumar vs.

Union of India)

11.4. It was stated by the learned counsel that there subsisted two sides of the story, one

where Jammu and Kashmir was a state and another where it was divided into

Union Territories.

11.5. Any related service matter, queries, or assistance were to be held by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (CAT).

11.6. It was held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and

the same was to be presented to CAT bench, Jammu.

12. Uday Pratap vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No.5893 of 2020)

12.1. Keywords – Anticipatory Bail.

12.2. Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail registered under S.341, 323,448, 504, 506/34,

376, 364 of IPC, and S.12 of POCSO Act.

12.3. The opposition counsel had opposed this prayer but after understanding that the

co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail, the court is inclined to

provide anticipatory bail to the petitioners after furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.

25,000.

Bombay High Court

13. Bhatu s/o Himmat Akhade v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2014,

decided on 21st August, 2020.)

13.1. Keywords: Circumstantial Evidence, §300, 302, 309, 84 of IPC, child witness and

credibility


13.2. The Present appeal arises against the conviction on grounds of unsound mind of

the convict. Lack of clear, cogent and convincing evidence pleaded.

13.3. The character and preceding actions of the accused bought to light behaviour of

the accused, alongside the acts done on the day of the murder and attempted

suicide

13.4. Burden of Proof on the claimant when general defences from the Indian Penal

Code are claimed, sufficient evidence has to be supplied in order to establish the

essentials of the general defence.

13.5. The facts alleged on the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence

must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It must create a complete chain of

circumstances, which would lead to inescapable inference of guilt of the accused.

Decision of Sessions Court upheld.

14. Raju @ Prahlad Naik v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2017,

decided on 19th August, 2020)

14.1. Keywords: §6, POSCO, 2012, Medical Evidence, §376, 377 of IPC, §3(1)(iii), Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

14.2. The appeal arises from the order of conviction for the offences allegedly

committed.

14.3. The Medical Evidence and the forensic testing of the evidence gathered proves that

there is no sign of any force, violence or outraging of the modesty.

14.4. Held, corresponding of the documentary evidence, the lack of any witness

testimonials, and lack of trustworthiness of the Mother’s statement call for an

acquittal.

15. Maksud Sheikh Ghafur Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 336 of

2016, decided on 28th August, 2020)

15.1. Keywords: §463A, CrPC, Bail for convicts.

15.2. Whether a convict who has challenged his conviction under § 374 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 is entitled to the benefit of §436 A of the Code

15.3. There is no absolute right to get released, conferred upon the under-trial prisoner

upon fulfilment of the conditions specified under Section 436-A of the Code.


15.4. In my view, Section 436-A, CrPC is restricted in its operation to grant of bail to an

under-trial prisoner 'during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial' and does

not, ex proprio vigore, apply at the appellate stage.

Delhi High Court

16. Sanjay Chuniana @ Sanju v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 800/2016 & Criminal

Miscellaneous (Bail) Application No. 195/2020, decided on, 21st August, 2020.)

16.1. Keywords: §376, 506 of IPC, §6, POSCO, 2012, Child Witness, Credibility, § 164, CrPC

16.2. Prosecutrix, minor aged 11 years old, was raped by a family member on two

accounts, but failed to report it immediately. The statements of the prosecutrix

recorded showed inconsistencies of fact.

16.3. Although the general rule says that the statement of the Prosecutrix is sufficient

for conviction, it has to be reliable enough to prove the commission of offence

beyond reasonable doubt.

16.4. Child Witnesses should be evaluated with greater care, as there exists scope for

tutoring the witness. The standard of proof should be certainly met, in order to

ascertain the alleged commission of the offence.

16.5. On account of inconsistencies in the witness statements and the lack of proper

investigation to put forth a substantial case, the appeal allowed and accused

acquitted.

17. Vinay Mittal v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 562/2019 & Criminal

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3920/2019, decided on 18th August, 2020.)

17.1. Keywords: §21, Extradition Act, 1962, §419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC,

Extradition, Funds Siphoning

17.2. Contended that the prosecution of Petitioner for cases filed post the extradition is

violative of §21 of Extradition Act.

17.3. Doctrine of Speciality: Rule of International law, wherein an extradited person can

only be tried for the offence that has warranted the extradition.

17.4. Held that until the Extradition request is acceded by the Republic of Indonesia, the

accused cannot be arrested.


17.5. In furtherance to this, the FBI was held to have complete independence to

prosecute the accused in other cases, given, the Indonesian Authorities accede to

the other offences as well.

Karnataka High Court

18. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2015, decided on 26th

August, 2020)

18.1. Keywords: §498A, 302, 304B, 201, 34 of IPC, §3, 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, §313

CRPC, difference between culpable homicide and murder

18.2. Reliance place on, if two possibilities are possible, the possibility which is in favour

of the accused has to be taken. The expert’s opinion is only advisory in nature.

18.3. The absence of definite medical opinion about the homicidal death of the deceased

in our comprehension is a serious setback to the prosecution.

18.4. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of

self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who

gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or

accident.

18.5. The punishment awarded by trial court modified, in light of facts, circumstances

and evidence.

Rajasthan High Court

19. Chet Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2015, decided on

25th August, 2020)

19.1. Keywords: §34, 302 of IPC, §374 of CrPC, Corroboration of Medical Evidence and

Witnesses

19.2. The appeal arises from a judgement of conviction, and the appellant mainly

contended the infirmities of appreciation of evidence and the corroboration

therewith.

19.3. The failure of investigating agency to act promptly and record the statements of

Eye-witnesses without any unreasonable delay, casts doubt on the veracity of the

prosecution and seriously affects the credibility of the Eye-witnesses.


19.4. Major contradictions in the evidence produced and the lack of establishment of the

case beyond reasonable doubt calls for the quashing of the order of conviction,

hence, acquitted.

20. Sanjiv R. Bhatt v. State (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 997/2020, decided on

26th August, 2020)

20.1. Keywords: §186, CrPC, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

20.2. The main contention put forth being, it is in respect of the same offence arising out

of the same occurrence and the same transaction against the same accused, this is

a clear case of harassment of the accused to appear and face trial in more than one

court.

20.3. The court held that, §186 of Cr.P.C is applicable only in those cases where two or

more Courts have taken cognizance of (53 of 54) [CRLMP-997/2020] the same

offence whereas, in the present case, two distinct offences are clearly made out of

both the complaints.

20.4. Reliance placed, the conspiracy to commit an offence and the actual commission

of an offence qualify as two separate and distinct offences. Hence, petition

dismissed.

Madras High Court

21. Jamuna Vs 1. The Secretary to Government, Government of India, 2. The

Lieutenant Governor, Rajnivas, Puducherry. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-

Authorized Officer, Puducherry (H.C.P.No. 90 of 2020)

21.1. The Madras High Court last week demanded from the Centre why it does not

enact a law to prohibit candidates with criminal background from contesting enact

a law to prohibit candidates with criminal background from contesting elections

to the Parliament as well as State legislatures as suggested by the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court on September 25, 2018 in Public Interest Foundation

v. Union of India.

21.2. The High Court asserted that persons with criminal background are becoming

policy makers in many parts of the country and this would sent a wrong message

to the people.


Madhya Pradesh High Court

22. George Mangalapilly vs. State of MP (CRM-M No. 20085/2020)

22.1. Keywords: Section 153-B (1) and Section 295-A, Indian Penal Code, M.P. Sharma

Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968.

22.2. Madhya Pradesh High Court repudiates to quash Criminal Proceedings against

man accused of Induced Religious Conversion stating that complainant

Dharmendra Dohar has no objection in repudiating the proceedings. However,

under the Adhiniyam, 1968 it is significant to maintain public tranquility.

Therefore, Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava decided not to quash the

proceedings in respect of offence under Section 3/4 of Adhiniyam, 1968.

23. The Registrar General M.P. High Court Jabalpur vs. Basant Kumar Gupta and Ors.

(2021-2029/2020)

23.1. Keywords: Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, Judicial Employees, Misconduct.

23.2. If a Government servant having more than two children shall be deemed to be

misconduct (if one of them is born on or after 26.01.2001) as per Clause (4) of Rule

22 of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

23.3. For this, some M.P. State Government employees headed towards High Court of

Madhya Pradesh against aforementioned Rule. Then High Court of M.P. granted

relief to the employees for the penalty imposed of withholding two increments

with cumulative effect.

23.4. When the High Court Administration challenged the order in Supreme Court, the

three-judges bench uphold the order of M.P. High Court and states that there was

no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and asserted that the order

is humane and appropriate for the alleged misconduct.

24. Narayan Dhakad vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (WP No. 20269/2019)

24.1. Keywords: Minor, Superintendent of Police.

24.2. In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reprimanded the Superintendent of

Police and Police team/Officers as they failed in their duty to trace out the missing

corpus/minor girl and secure her presence. And it was observed by the court that


whole team of the Police Officers did not take any interest in the matter. The court

said that this clearly shows negligence on the part of the police team.

25. Ekta Kapoor vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (MCRC No. 28386/2020)

25.1. Keywords: FIR, Coercion, Section 298, Section 34, IPC.

25.2. The petition was filed by one Anniruddha Singh, brother-in-law of an Indian

soldier, seeking a ban on the show produced by Ekta Kapoor, which is allegedly

tarnishing and maligning the social reputation of wives of army officers.

25.3. However, Ekta Kapoor stated that the controversial scene is deleted and

apologized for any sentiment that is hurt unintentionally.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on Thursday (20th August)

directed the State Government not to take any coercive steps against Kapoor till

the next date of hearing.

Guwahati High Court

26. Md. Sirajuddin Ahmed vs. the State of Assam (Case No. : AB 1795/2020)

26.1. Keywords- Anticipatory bail.

26.2. In this case, the petitioner seeks an anticipatory bail over the kidnapping and

having sexual intercourse with a minor, claiming to marry but refusing later on.

26.3. It was found that the petitioner also gave the girl poison to kill herself while the

girl was seven months pregnant. He refused to marry because the man wanted the

girl to embrace Islam.

26.4. It was later found that the girl being pregnant was a rumor and she was having a

consensual relationship with the man. It was also found that the girl had brought

poison for herself because of the pregnancy rumor.

26.5. The court held that the case diary did not hold sufficient incriminating materials

to justify the detention of the petitioner in custody.

26.6. The petitioner was to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with surety that satisfied the

authority.

Jharkhand High Court

27. Amrendra Gandhi vs The State of Jharkhand


27.1. Keywords – Anticipatory bail.

27.2. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act pending in the court of learned special judged, A.C.B, Ranchi.

27.3. A regular bail was not granted but later on, it was held that due to the epidemic,

there was no likelihood of framing of charges in near future and, in addition to

this, the petitioner had remained in custody for more than six months.

27.4. Bail was granted for Rs.10,000 and two sureties were to be furnished.


Legal Maxim of the Fortnight

Nunc Pro Tunc

Meaning: Literally meaning ‘now for then’, the maxim refers to changing back to an

earlier date of an order, judgement, or filing of a document. It has been held to mean that

if owing to the delay in what the court should, otherwise, have done earlier but did later,

a party suffers owing to events occurring in the interregnum, the Court has the power to

remedy it. The area of operation of the maxim was, generally, held to be procedural.

Landmark Judgment: S. Krishna Sradha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (Civil Appeal

1081 of 2017)

Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2017

Bench: Dipak Mishra, R. F. Nariman

Facts: A medical student had submitted all the necessary documents for her admission

in the medical college under sports category. However, she was denied admission into

the college on account of the cut off date being elapsed. The candidate had submitted all

the documents but there was gross negligence on the part of the concerned authorities.

The high court of Andhra Pradesh gave the verdict in favour of the authorities and

referred to the case of Jasmine Kaur, where there was no admission granted to the student

but some compensation was given to the candidate.

Then the appellant appealed Supreme Court of India. The apex court held that all the

previous decisions relating to this matter stand overruled and if the cut-off date has

passed a meritorious student can be given admission into the college.

Ratio Decidendi: The three words that have been proclaimed in the said judgment,

namely, nunc pro tunc, is basically in the realm of doctrine of relation back and it is applied

because of the fault of the court, the litigant should not suffer, it is unimaginable that for

the fault of the administrators or the counselling body or for some kind of evil designer,

grant of compensation should be regarded as the lone remedy.


This Day in History

• 2nd September,1945- World War II came to an end as Japanese Foreign

Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru and General Umezu Yoshijiro signed Japan's formal

surrender aboard the USS Missouri.

• 26th August, 1920- The Nineteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution of the

United States, giving women the right to vote.

• 19th August, 1934- Some 90 percent of German voters approved a referendum that

made Adolf Hitler “Führer und Reichskanzler” (“leader and chancellor”).

• 24th August, 1949- The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) entered into force,

following the signing of its treaty four months earlier.

• 27th August, 2008- Democratic politician Barack Obama became the first African

American to be nominated for the presidency by either major party; he later

defeated Republican John McCain to win the office.

• 28th August, 1963- 200,000 people marched on Washington, D.C., an event that became

a maor high point of the civil rights movement, especially remembered for the famous

“I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King, Jr.


Fun Facts

As opposed to the common belief, the first ever supersession in the history of the

Supreme Court was of Justice Imam by Justice Gajendragadkar because Justice

Imam was seriously not well and it was not driven on any political basis.

The petitioners in the historic judgments, i.e. Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of

Kerala, IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India in

the constitutional history of India, lost their cases though the judgments shaped

the future of constitutional framework in India.

According to the Indian- Treasure Trove Act, 1878, if any person discovers

anything whose value exceeded Rs. 11 then he/she has to report it. Failure to

report it can lead to imprisonment of one year or fine or both.

The shortest period for which a person can be put behind the bars is 24 hours

under section 510 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The original Constitution is hand-written and each page was distinctively

decorated by artists from Shantiniketan including Beohar Rammanohar Sinha

and Nandalal Bose.

~

Reach to our team at [email protected] or -91-7434045410 (WhatsApp)



&ulplqdo/dz5hylhz &u/5 $5hvhdufk2ujdqlvdwlrq

Documents