Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up [October 2023]
Live LawNominal Index Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw 844 Aditya Khaitan & Ors. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA v. NANJUNDASWAMY 2023 LiveLaw 940 Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw 942 Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw 944 Judgments/Orders Mere Non-Cooperation To ED Summons Not A Ground For Arrest Under PMLA; ED Can't Expect Admission Of Guilt From Person Summoned: Supreme Court Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Basant Bansal v. Union of India Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 844; 2023INSC866 In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement for mere non-cooperation in response to a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that confining the applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act only to the physical body and excluding a bag carried by a person can defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to provide a safeguard against abuse of powers by the investigating agency during a search operation JJ Act | 'May' In S. 19 Be Read As 'Shall'; Children's Court Must Hold Inquiry On Whether Child Should Be Tried As Adult: Supreme Court Case Title: Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.3023 of 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 857 The Supreme Court recently held that compliance with Section 19 subclause of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which requires the Children’s Court to hold an inquiry as to whether the alleged offender is to be tried as a child or an adult is not a mere formality. On the contrary, if from such materials a prima facie satisfaction is reached upon application of judicial mind of an “offence” having been committed and there being sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate is under no other fetter from issuing process,” a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Bela M Trivedi observed Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act: Supreme Court Explains Case title: Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 861 The Supreme Court recently held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not inherently impose a burden on the accused but comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, facts that could support theories compatible with their innocence. “A court of law cannot declare the reputation of a person based upon its own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, that by itself will not create a positive reputation,” the Apex Court said NDPS Act | If Samples Are Drawn Violating Section 52A, Trial Stands Vitiated: Supreme Court Case Title: Yusuf @ Asif V. State, Criminal Appeal No.3191 Of 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 890 The Supreme Court on Friday, set aside the order of the High Court that had sentenced a man to 10 years’ imprisonment for being found in possession of commercial quantities of heroin.