1. Vijayan vs . Krishnan & Others ( 17 . 05 .

1962 - KERHC )

Decision Date: 17.05.1962

Subject: Criminal

Subject: Law of Evidence

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 417(3) Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 105 Indian
Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section 500

Case Note: Penal Code (1860), S. 499 - Defamation--Proof--Elements to be proved--Exception 9 to S.

499--Burden and nature of proof--Evidence Act (1872). S. 105.Held: To bring the publication of a
scandalous imputation under the Penal Law it is not necessary to prove that it was done out of any ill will
or malice or that the complainant had actually suffered from it. It would be sufficient to show that the
accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the
reputation of the complainant. The burden lies on the accused person to make out that his case comes
within any of the exceptions. By virtue of S. 105 of the Evidence Act, the Court is bound to presume the
absence of circumstances which would bring the offence within any of the special exceptions contained in
S. 499 of the Penal Code. In order to bring it within Exception 9 an accused person is not bound to prove
that the imputation made by him is true. It is sufficient for him to prove that he made it in good faith for
the protection of any person or for public good. If he proves that on reasonable grounds, he believed the
imputation to be true and in that belief he bona fide made it, he will be protected. Therefore "good faith"
is of the essence of Exception 9. A reading of Exceptions 2, 3 and 9 would show that the exceptions apply
only to expressions of opinion or imputations on character and not to assertions of fact. The latter can be
justified only by truth. Comments must be on actual and not on imagined conduct and even if the accused
person genuinely believed the imputed conduct to be real that would be no defence. If the opinion of the
imputation purports to be based on facts, then the person claiming the benefit of these exceptions must
prove those facts.Absence of good faith is want of due care and caution. The accused has therefore, the
duty to take due care and caution before he asserts the facts.

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

2. Kameshwar Prasad and Ors . vs . The State of Bihar and Ors . ( 22 . 02 . 1962 - SC )

MANU/SC/0410/1962

Decision Date: 22.02.1962

Subject:Service

Subject: Constitution

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 13(2) Constitution Of India - Article 13(3) Constitution Of India - Article
132 Constitution Of India - Article 15 Constitution Of India - Article 16 Constitution Of India - Article 18
Constitution Of India - Article 19 Constitution Of India - Article 19(1) Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(a)
Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(b) Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(c) Constitution Of India -
Article 19(2) Constitution Of India - Article 19(3) Constitution Of India - Article 19(a)(1) Constitution Of
India - Article 22 Constitution Of India - Article 226 Constitution Of India - Article 309 Constitution Of India
- Article 310 Constitution Of India - Article 33 Representation Of The People Act 1951 - Section 128(1)

Case Note: The case debated on constitutional validity of the rule constituted prohibiting the Government
Servant from participation in strikes or demonstrations pertaining to conditions of the service - It was held
that as per Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, the servants were prohibited
any form of demonstration, however incapable of causing a breach of public tranquility, was violative of
Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India

Disposition: Appeal Partly Allowed

Tufail Ahmad vs . Jamila Khatun ( 02 . 04 . 1962 - ALLHC )

MANU/UP/0136/1962

Decision Date: 02.04.1962

Subject: Family

Act: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 - Section 2

Case Note: Family - suit for dissolution of marriage - Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,
1939 - charges of unchastity subsequently retracted by plaintiff - no suggestion that retraction was not
bonafide - held, retraction is a sufficient ground for non-suiting the plaintiff.

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

N . Paul and Ors . vs . Vinod Kumar ( 21 . 03 . 2016 - MADHC )

MANU/TN/0510/2016

Decision Date: 21.03.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 197(1)(a) Constitution Of India - Article 356 Constitution Of India - Article 365 Indian Penal Code
1860 (IPC) - Section 120B Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 193 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) -
Section 195 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 211 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 34 Indian
Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 409 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code 1860
(IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 76 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 79
Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 93 Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) Prevention
Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(2) Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 16 Prevention Of
Corruption Act 1988 - Section 19 Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 25(1)(2) Prevention Of
Corruption Act 1988 - Section 29

Case Note: Criminal - Quashing of proceedings - Sections 34, 193, 195, 211 and 500 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) - Petition filed for quashing of proceedings initiated against Petitioners IPC - Whether
proceedings initiated against Petitioners could be quashed - Held, no sanction order has been obtained
from competent authority - Petitioners had sent a communication to their higher authorities in good faith
intimating that there was a shortage of platinum - Petitioners while discharging their official duty, had
given complaint as per direction of their higher officials - It was a fit case for quashing proceedings -
Petition allowed. [10],[17],[18] and[19]

Disposition: Petition Allowed

Pratap Kedia and Ors . vs . Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Ors . ( 07 . 03 . 2016 - CALHC )

MANU/WB/0170/2016

Decision Date: 07.03.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 156(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(CrPC) - Section 482 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 120B Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section
34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 406 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 417 Indian Penal
Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 420 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)
- Section 506 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138
Case Note: Criminal - Quashing of proceedings - Sections 34, 420 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Present revision filed seeking quashing of proceeding under Sections 420/500/34 of Code - Whether
impugned proceedings initiated against Petitioners were liable to be quashed - Held, criminal proceeding
is liable to be quashed if contents of petition of complaint do not disclose any offence - It was not found
that Petitioners deceived opposite parties in any way - Without ventilating grievances against Bank for
closure of cash credit facility of opposite parties, opposite parties made allegation that said facility was
withdrawn by Bank on basis of Petitioners' false complaint - Closure of cash credit facility of opposite
parties by Bank would not can cause harm to reputation of opposite parties before business community -
No offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of Code was made out against Petitioners - Further,
no iota of allegation to indicate common intention of all Petitioners in order to rope all of them for offence
under Section 34 of Code - Impugned proceedings were quashed - Revision allowed. [6] and[9]

Sandeep Pandey vs . Union of India and Ors . ( 22 . 04 . 2016 - ALLHC )

MANU/UP/0572/2016

Decision Date: 22.04.2016

Subject: Service

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 19 Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(a) Constitution Of India - Article
19(2) Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 66

Case Note: Employment - Termination of contract as visitings Professor--Termination order certainly

proceeded to make note that services of petitioner were being disengaged in consonance with terms and
conditions--Petitioner had been performing and discharging his duties in B.H.U. and he was bound by
conduct rules--In case he had proceeded to cross lines then certainly after affording adequate opportunity
of hearing his services could have been disengaged--Case was not a termination simplicitor rather it was
stigmatic order wherein petitioner had been alleged to have committed cyber crime--Not only that he had
been accused of cyber crime and allegation had been there that he was acting against national interest--
Decision of Academic Administrator had to be free from malice and authority had to be exercised in free,
fair and transparent manner after complying with principle of natural justice--Petitioner was attributed
with misconduct and without holding enquiry by violating principle of natural justice with impunity
impugned order was passed clearly casting stigma on his character--Impugned decisions quashed--Writ
petition allowed. [1], [2], [14] and [20] to [22]

Disposition: Petition Allowed

Dasgupta Rupashree vs . The State of Bihar and Ors . ( 21 . 04 . 2016 - PATNAHC )

MANU/BH/0306/2016

Decision Date: 21.04.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 354 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 500

Case Note: Criminal - Taking cognizance of offence - Present revision filed against order dismissing
criminal case instituted by Complainant and took cognizance of case filed by Accused - Whether impugned
order was sustainable - Held, Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction by virtually writing Judgment of
acquittal while dismissing Complaint - At stage of cognizance all that was required was to see or not
whether prima facie offence was made out against Accused persons - Magistrate had not only taken
extraneous materials while leaning in favour of Opposite Party as also his judicial order revealed his total
deficiency of knowledge of Criminal law - On bare perusal of Complaint Case filed by Accused, no case
was made out against Petitioner - Hence cognizance was required to be set aside - Reference answered.

Kh . Shantibala Devi vs . The State of Manipur and Ors . ( 19 . 05 . 2016 - Manipur )

MANU/MN/0049/2016
Decision Date: 19.05.2016

Subject: Service

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 14 Constitution Of India - Article 309

Case Note: Service - Transfer - Writ Petition filed impugned Government order whereby transferring and
posting Petitioner and Respondent as given against their names therein - Whether issuance of impugned
order was malafide - Held, it appeared that post of Project Officer (ICDP), Porompat was not an inter
transferable post - It was nowhere mentioned in impugned order that transfer order was made in public
interest nor has it been stated by State Respondents that transfer was in public interest or on
administrative exigency - Since State Government being an institution, it ought to act fairly and reasonably
and there must be a bonafide and cogent reason behind any such action of State Government - Absence
of any cogent reason would ultimately and definitely tantamount to order being malafide - Transfer was
not only an incident but a condition of service and an employee holding a transferable post could not claim
vested right for his/her posting at a particular place - Petitioner was recommended by a DPC for
appointment by promotion to post of Project Officer and on basis of recommendation, Petitioner was
appointed by promotion to said post of Project Officer - It was nowhere mentioned in impugned order that
transfer of Petitioner was in public interest or on administrative exigency - Impugned order issued in
malafide exercise of power and not in public interest - Writ Petition allowed. [10],[11] and[13]

Disposition: Petition Allowed

Waqf Musammat Sharifan Biwi vs . Prabhu Saran Rajvedi and Ors . ( 31 . 05 . 2016 - ALLHC )

MANU/UP/0973/2016

Decision Date: 31.05.2016

Subject: Trusts and Societies

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section
9 Constitution Of India - Article 226 Constitution Of India - Article 227 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 2 Waqf
Act 1995 - Section 27 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 36 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 37 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 4
Waqf Act 1995 - Section 40 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 5 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 51 Waqf Act 1995 - Section
52-A Waqf Act 1995 - Section 6 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 6(1) Waqf Act 1995 - Section 61 Waqf Act 1995
- Section 64 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 7 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 85

Case Note: Wakf Act, 1995 - Sections 6 and 27--Constitution of India--Article 226/227--Waqf--Existence
of--Suit for injunction was allowed only on ground that plaintiffs being tenants could not be evicted except
in accordance with law--Whereas relief for cancellation of sale-deed was refused--A trial court ultimately
concluded in favour of defendants that they were bona fide purchasers--Real dispute was between
petitioner and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 regarding existence of waqf--Held, appellate court while affirming
findings of trial court had committed grave error and overreached its jurisdiction in arriving at finding that
waqf was not in existence as it was cancelled by registered deed of cancellation executed by waqf--
Approach of appellate court found to absolutely misguided against settled principles of law--If said findings
of appellate court on question of waqf were allowed to sustain that would have caused material injustice
to persons interested In waqf without adjudication of real issue in dispute--In order to advance ends of
justice power under Article 227 of Constitution had to be exercised--Impugned order set aside--Petition
allowed. [2] to [14] and [80] to [92]

Disposition: Petition Allowed

Waqf Musammat Sharifan Biwi vs . Prabhu Saran Rajvedi and Ors . ( 31 . 05 . 2016 - ALLHC )

MANU/UP/0973/2016

Decision Date: 31.05.2016

Subject: Trusts and Societies

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section
9 Constitution Of India - Article 226 Constitution Of India - Article 227 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 2 Waqf
Act 1995 - Section 27 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 36 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 37 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 4
Waqf Act 1995 - Section 40 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 5 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 51 Waqf Act 1995 - Section
52-A Waqf Act 1995 - Section 6 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 6(1) Waqf Act 1995 - Section 61 Waqf Act 1995
- Section 64 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 7 Waqf Act 1995 - Section 85

Case Note: Wakf Act, 1995 - Sections 6 and 27--Constitution of India--Article 226/227--Waqf--Existence
of--Suit for injunction was allowed only on ground that plaintiffs being tenants could not be evicted except
in accordance with law--Whereas relief for cancellation of sale-deed was refused--A trial court ultimately
concluded in favour of defendants that they were bona fide purchasers--Real dispute was between
petitioner and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 regarding existence of waqf--Held, appellate court while affirming
findings of trial court had committed grave error and overreached its jurisdiction in arriving at finding that
waqf was not in existence as it was cancelled by registered deed of cancellation executed by waqf--
Approach of appellate court found to absolutely misguided against settled principles of law--If said findings
of appellate court on question of waqf were allowed to sustain that would have caused material injustice
to persons interested In waqf without adjudication of real issue in dispute--In order to advance ends of
justice power under Article 227 of Constitution had to be exercised--Impugned order set aside--Petition
allowed. [2] to [14] and [80] to [92]

Disposition: Petition Allowed