April - 2012
- Central Bureau of Investigation: As the Central Vigilance Commission ("CVC") has been constituted under the CVC Act, 2003 with the purpose of supervision of investigating agencies like CBI, therefore, the Court directed the CBI to submit periodical reports about investigation in 2G spectrum case to CVC, and there was no requirement for the Supreme Court to monitor such investigation itself. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (Supreme Court).
- Cheque bounce: For purpose of offence of cheque bounce, the cheque should be presented for encashment before the drawee bank (i.e., bank on which it was issued from). Alternatively, it may be presented elsewhere and must reach the drawee bank for collection thereon within the validity period of the cheque. In absence of aforesaid, no offence would be made out. Amit Dubey v. Arvind Dubey, (HC of MP).
- Criminal charge: When a government notification clarifies the position of criminal law, then the charges in the criminal case which have been once framed cannot be re-framed on the basis of such clarification of law, unless it is demonstrated that notification could have retrospective operation. Prakash v. State of MP, (HC of MP).
- Criminal investigation: Every citizen of the country has a right to get her or his complaint properly investigated, and the legal framework of investigation cannot be provided to some and denied to others selectively. Further held, when the Magistrate had recorded suspicion about the police investigation, then further investigation should not have been handed over to the same officials. Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra, (Supreme Court).
- Electricity: Unauthorised usage of electricity u/s.126 stands in contradistinction to theft of electricity which has been defined u/s.135 of the enactment; in latter case intention is required to be proved which would not be the case in former. Further held, the scope & intent of unauthorised usage has been defined under the provision itself, for eg., excess usage of electricity. Southern Electricity Supply Company v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (Supreme Court) (3J).
- Electricity: When the dispute pertains to disconnection on the premises of unauthorised use of electricity which is defined under s.126 of Electricity Act, 2003, then, which is excluded as per definition of "grievance" under regulations framed under s.45, therefore, dispute cannot be adjudicated by the "Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum". Qutubuddin v. MP Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company, (HC of MP) (DB).
- Freedom of trade & profession: Respecting the fundamental rights of every citizen with respect to trade & profession, held, that in wake of National Policy, 2009, the State government has enacted the M.P. Path par vikray karne walon ki jivika ka Sanrakshan aur Vikray ka Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 2011 and laid down the policy - Mukhyamantri (Path par vikray karna wale) Shahri Garibon ke liye Kalyan Yojna, 2012. Accordingly, once the survey & rehabilitation work has commenced, the street vendors cannot claim that they have right to carry on trade at a particular place. Mahankal Footpath Hawker's Union v. Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, (HC of MP) (DB).
- Lok Adalat: An award of Lok Adalat is a deemed decree, and accordingly, even when issue pertains of criminal offences, the award would be deemed decree under Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the enforcement of the said award would be under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not as per the law which governed the issue prior to the award. KN Govindan Kutty Menon v. CD Shaji, (Supreme Court).
- Smoking hukka: Additional District Magistrate is empowered under s.144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to stop smoking hukka in the hukka bars as the same is to prevent danger to human life & health. Further held, even though repetitive orders were being passed, the same were premised on fresh material by public analyst. All India Cafe and Sheesha Association v. State of MP, (HC of MP).
- Territorial jurisdiction: When civil suit with respect to a transaction can be filed at more than one place, then even though parties by agreement cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court which does not have it, however, by an agreement it would be valid to restrict the jurisdiction with respect to the lis. AVM Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals Private Limited, (Supreme Court).