SUPREME COURT

• CRIMINAL

Shaikh Maqsood v State of Maharashtra (Decided on 04.05.2009) MANU/SC/0718/2009

Criminal - Appellant faces trial under sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife - Trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498A and 304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC - High Court upholds conviction - Appellant appeals to Supreme Court - Appeal allowed.

The importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 313 of the Code cannot be too strongly stressed. It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him. The questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand.

• FAMILY

Omprakash and Ors v Radhacharan and Ors (Decided on 05.05.2009) MANU/SC/0728/2009

Family - Person died intestate - Appellant files an application for grant of succession certificate in terms of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act -Respondents also file a similar application-admitted that all her properties were self acquired - Whether Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case?

The language used in Section 15(1) read with Section 16 makes it clearly, the class who has to succeed of property of Hindu female dying intestate. Sub-section (1) specifically state that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16. So, in case Sub-section (1) applies, then after the death of Santi, Indro can not inheritance by succession but it would go to the heirs of the pre-deceased husband of Santi. Appeal dismissed.

• SERVICE TAX

Union of India (UOI) and Ors v Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd (Decided on 05.05.2009) MANU/SC/0739/2009

Service Tax- Appeal filed against a judgment and order of the High Court - Whether sale, promotion and marketing of lottery tickets would be exigible to `Service Tax' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994.

In a case of this nature, the Court must be satisfied that the Parliament did not intend to introduce a substantive change in the law. As stated hereinbefore, for the aforementioned purpose, the expressions like `for the removal of doubts' are not conclusive. The said expressions appear to have been used under assumption that organizing games of chance would be rendition of service. We are herein not concerned as to whether it was constitutionally permissible for the Parliament to do so as we are not called upon to determine the said question but for our purpose, it would be suffice to hold that the explanation is not clarificatory or declaratory in nature. Held that the High Court judgment albeit for different reasons warrants no interference.

HIGH COURT

• CRIMINAL

DELHI HIGH COURT

Imran vs The State (Decided on 24.4.2009) MANU/DE/0380/2009

Appeal directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 367/377/506/342/34 IPC - Whether the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would be extended to a person who was the juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence in terms of the old Act.

There is no question of now sending the appellant to either face trial or for being sentenced in terms of Section 20 to the Juvenile Justice Board as he is more than 26 years of age as on date. There is also no question of sending him to the Observation Home for boys which is only meant for juveniles.

• COMPANY

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Maj (Ret.) Babu Thomas v Goa Shipyard Limited (Decided on 02.05.2009) MANU/MH/0277/2009

Petitioner moves petition to challenge the order of dismissal and seeks reinstatement of service with full back wages.

Service means and includes, both, removal from service without any disqualification of future employment elsewhere or dismissal, within the meaning of major penalties under Rule 27. The petitioner was aware that he was subjected to departmental proceeding for major penalties and was furnished with the report of the Enquiry officer thereafter. It, therefore, cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner upon imposition of the penalty of dismissal prescribed under the said rule. Both the aforesaid judgments have deprecated imposition of punishment not prescribed under the disciplinary rules or punishment which is higher than the punishment for which show cause notice was issued. The judgments cited by the petitioner therefore do not come to his rescue in the given set of facts and circumstances in the present case.

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Indian Overseas Bank v The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) and Appellate Authority Payment of Gratuity Act Ministry of Labour (Decided on 28.04.2009) MANU/TN/0733/2009

Appeal filed by appellant for not being entitled for the revision of gratuity based on the revised salary - According to appellant bank the third respondent retired much before the cut-off date.

It was held that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the Settlement entered into in respect of revision of salary, a subsequent cut-off date viz., 1.11.1994 was fixed for the purpose of gratuity claim and hence, the third respondent is not entitled to claim more than what he was granted as gratuity cannot be countenanced especially when the third respondent was an employee within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972, even after its amendment dated 25.4.1994. Further, the agreement entered into cannot take away the rights of parties, particularly when a better benefit is given to the employees. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge.

• CRIMINAL

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Geetha @ Sharmila and Ors. Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police (Decided on 03.04.2009) MANU/TN/0653/2009

Petition is filed seeking for a direction to quash a police notice under Sections 160 and 91 Cr.P.C - whether action of the police of not mentioning about the pendency of a case, crime number and the offence amounted to violation of procedure by police.

Court was of the opinion that even though there is no direct provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer, Section 160 Cr.P.C has been invoked by the respondent police with reference to the procedure adopted while investigating cases pertaining to matrimonial and other minor offences. No violation found in the procedure adopted by the respondent police.

• SERVICE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Shivakant Mishra vs State of UP (Decided on 05.05.2009) MANU/UP/0072/2009

Petition filed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the petitioners their salary regularly and other consequential benefits and to treat the requisite number of teaching and non-teaching staff as duly sanctioned as a necessary corollary and for due implementation of the Government Order and accordingly make the grant-in-aid available for payment of salary to the petitioners from the date of their appointments.

It is not in dispute that the Section of the Institution imparting education upto Shastri and Acharya level is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff of that Section of the Institution is being paid by the Sate Government. Since the State Government is paying salary of the teachers and the non-teaching employees working in the section of the Institution in which education upto Acharya and Shastri level is being imparted, the State Government, in my opinion, cannot deny its liability to make payment of the petitioners' salary w.e.f. the date of their appointments.