• Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC Murder Common intention Life sentence Causing disappearance of evidence Deceased was first wife of appellant Appellant was apprehended when he was planning to run away with his second wife – Motive alleged to be frequent fights between two wives Prosecution case fully corroborated by medical evidence Circumstances clearly establish guilt of appellant in killing of deceased who was his first wife and he had clear motive to eliminate her Killing of deceased could have been done only by appellant Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15)*_

_*ARVINDKUMAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA CRL-A 53/10 26/07/12 [ SWATANTER JJ ]*_

_*[ SUPREME COURT ]*_

adv Vaibhav Tomar/ All Rights reserved

click here to below the judgment

ARVINDKUMAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Ummer vs Dewlite CRR 253/20 21/12/21

[ SANDEEP JJ ]

[ HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ]
Section 397 CRPC NI ACT Section 138 Against Conviction Dishonour of cheque Compounding of offences Entire amount of compensation stands received by complainant Complainant not having objection in compounding Offence liable to be compounded Conviction, set aside Moreover, since complainant was unnecessarily dragged to institute legal proceedings against accused that too for realisation of his own money, accused directed to pay Rs. 25,000/as litigation cost.

Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands received by the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

adv Saba Hasan/All rights reserved

click here for the judgment

UMMER FAROOQUE SUHALI_Judgement_11-Jul-2022

Murder case – Presence of eye-witness – Allegedly deceased was attacked when he was returning from Court and was just 15 to 20 minutes away from the court – It was contended that presence of PW2 (eye-witness) was doubtful as he himself had stated that he came to the crime spot subsequent to the occurrence after receiving a message. Held, presence of PW2 was natural as he was required to attend the court. On being specifically questioned about his statement before the police that he reached the crime spot subsequently, PW2 denied the same and categorically stated that no such statement was given by him to the police and he did not know how such a statement was recorded in his statement. No question was asked by the defence to the person/IO who recorded the statement of PW2. Considering his deposition as a whole, it is clear that prosecution successfully proved his presence at the time and place of incident. (Para 10)*_

_*Rakesh and another v. State of U.P. CRL-A 556/21 06/07/21*_

_*[ SUPREME COURT ]*_

Adv Saba Hasan/ All rights reserved

click here to see the Judgment

Rakesh & ors va state of UP_Judgement_06-Jul-2021

FEMA, BANKING & INSURANCE: SC upholds legality of demonetisation carried out by Notification u/s 26(2) of RBI Act without passing legislations like on earlier 2 occasions.

• Denomination carried out by Notification, dated 8-11-2016, issued u/s 26(2) of RBI Act, is legal as the word “any” in the said section cannot be construed in a restrictive way as conferring powers to demonetise only one or some series of bank notes of a certain denomination and not as conferring powers to demonetise all bank notes of a particular denomination . The word confers sufficient powers to demonetise all series of bank notes of a denomination . The said section is not unconstitutional on grounds of excessive delegation.
• Further, the impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 does not suffer from any flaws in the decision-making process. The impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 satisfies the test of proportionality and, as such, cannot be struck down on the said ground. The period provided for exchange of notes vide the impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 cannot be said to unreasonable.

PER SUPREME COURT (BY 4:1 MAJORITY)

(i) The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for ‘one’ or ‘some’ series of bank notes and not for ‘all’ series of bank notes. The power can be exercised for all series of bank notes. Merely because on two earlier occasions, the demonetization exercise was by plenary legislation, it cannot be held that such a power would not be available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act;
(ii) Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act does not provide for excessive delegation inasmuch as there is an inbuilt safeguard that such a power has to be exercised on the recommendation of the Central Board. As such, sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act is not liable to be struck down on the said ground;
(iii) The impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 does not suffer from any flaws in the decision-making process;
(iv) The impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 satisfies the test of proportionality and, as such, cannot be struck down on the said ground;
(v) The period provided for exchange of notes vide the impugned Notification dated 8th November 2016 cannot be said to unreasonable; and
(vi) The RBI does not possess independent power under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the 2017 Act in isolation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4(1) thereof to accept the demonetized notes beyond the period specified in notifications issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the 2017 Act.

CLICK BELOW TO READ THE JUDGEMENT

SC upholds legality of demonetisation carried out by Notification us 26(2) of RBI Act without passing legislations.

**ADV MEGHA** ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.906 OF 2016
VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA …PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT (S)

On 8th November 2016, the notification of the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act, notified that the bank notes 500 and 1000 shall cease to be legal tender with effect from 9th November 2016.

On 30th December 2016, the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016 was promulgated by the Hon’ble President of India. Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 which received the assent of the then Hon’ble President of India on 27th February
2017. The object and purpose of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016 is to constitute a Reserve Bank of India to regulate the issue of bank notes and for keeping reserves with a view to secure monetary stability in India, and to generally operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage.

The Preamble of the Act states that it is essential to have a modern monetary policy framework to meet the challenge of an increasingly complex economy and the primary objective of the monetary policy is to maintain price stability while keeping in mind the objective of growth.

The monetary policy framework in India shall be operated by the Reserve Bank of India. The previous demonetisations were not carried out on the strength of sub­section (2) of Section 26 of the Act inasmuch as both the legislations categorically stated that the demonetisation was “notwithstanding anything contained
in Section 26 of the Act”.

In fact, under the 1978 Act, one of the objects of the demonetisation of high denomination bank notes was that such notes facilitated illicit transfer of money for financial transactions which were harmful to the national economy or were used for illegal purposes and therefore, it was necessary in public interest to demonetise the high denomination bank notes. The use of the non­obstante clause clearly indicates that the Central Government was not demonetising the currency on the recommendation of the Central Board of the Bank under sub­section (2) of Section 26 of the Act. In fact, this position is demonstrated by the fact that
in the year 1978, the then Central Government sought an opinion of the Central Board of the Bank regarding the demonetisation of high denomination bank notes. The proposal for demonetisation arose from or was initiated by the Central Government which sought the opinion of the Central Board of the Bank. Therefore, the proposal for demonetisation initiated by the Central Government was de hors sub­section (2) of Section 26 of the Act.

The fact that the non­obstante clause found a place in Section 3 of the Ordinance of 1946 as well as in Section 3 of the 1978 Act, would clearly indicate that the Central Government, in those cases, did not demonetise the high denomination bank notes on the recommendation made by the Central Board of the Bank under sub­section (2) of Section 26 of the Act but on the other hand, the same was carried out de hors the said provision y plenary legislations. Hence, the Central Government which
initiated the process chose the route through legislation for carrying out the demonetisation rather than by issuing an executive notification in the Gazette of India.

The above is in contrast with the issuance of the gazette notification dated 8th November, 2016, which was followed bythe Ordinance of 2016 and then the Act of 2017 was enacted. The said Act, inter alia, provides that the specified bank notes would cease to be the liability of the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government.

The demonetisation carried out in the year 2016, of all series of bank notes of denomination Rs.500/­ and Rs.1,000/­ which forms the subject matter of the controversy at hand was, on the other hand, carried out by the Central Government by issuance of a notification in the Gazette of India on 8th November, 2016 demonetisation was an initiative of the Central Government, targeted to address disparate evils, plaguing the Nation’s economy, including, practices of hoarding “black” money, counterfeiting, which in turn enable even greater evils, including terror funding, drug trafficking, emergence of a parallel economy, money laundering including Havala transactions. It is beyond the pale of doubt that the said measure, which was aimed at eliminating these depraved practices, was well ­intentioned.

The measure is reflective of concern for the economic health and security of the country and demonstrates foresight. The measure was motivated by anything but the best intentions and noble objects for the betterment of the Nation. The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legalistic analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act and not on the objects of demonetisation. In the result, the writ petitions, special leave petitions and transfer petitions are directed to be posted before the appropriate Bench after seeking orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

(Adv Vaibhav Tomar )All Rights Reserved

CLICK BELOW READ THE JUDGEMENT

Best intentions and noble objects for the betterment of the Nation -Demonetization said by Supreme Court of India