Topics Discussed

Under Judgments
Cr. P.C
Section 53, 102, 164, 193,
197, 200, 202, 301, 302,
319, 320 and 372

IPC
Section 218, 300, 302,
304A, 304B and 498A

IEA
Section 6
Section 32 (1)
Multiple Dying
Declarations
Corpus Delictii

Minor Acts
Section 50 NDPS
Rule 12(3) (A) JJ Act
Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST
(POA) Act
Section 2 (17A) Bihar
Excise Act
Section 13 (2) Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act

Editorial Board
Editor
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, AD (Law)

SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL Members

Ms. Charu Sharma

NATIONAL POLICE ACADEMY Mr. Abhishek Gupta

Mr. Lodha Shrenik Dilip

QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN Mr. Mrigank Shekhar Pathak

Mr. Abhinav Tyagi
Mr. Ajay Jain
Mr. Bharat Soni
2020 Vol : II, Issue : I Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal

2
Code of Criminal Procedure
Manjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. :
2019 SCC OnLine SC 896
HELD: Sec. 320 Cr. P. C- A non-compoundable offence
cannot be ordered to be compromised but the factum
of compromise can be taken into consideration while
imposing substantive sentence.
In present case the appellant Manjit Singh was convicted
u/s 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for five years. The appellant served seventeen months
of imprisonment. The appellant/ accused Manjit Singh
preferred present appeal before the Supreme Court.
During pendency of the appeal, the parties compromised
the matter. The Court observed that Section 307 I.P.C. is a
non-compoundable offence and, therefore, no permission
can be granted to record the compromise between the
parties. However, the Hon’ble Court while considering
the compromise and the sentence already undergone by
appellant accused, reduced the sentence of imprisonment
from five years/two years to the period already undergone
by appellant and also set aside the fine amount of 50,000/-
imposed upon appellant.
Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police: 2019
SCC Online SC 951
HELD: Balancing of aggravating circumstances
with mitigating circumstances to find that the crime
committed was cold blooded and involved the rape of
a minor girl and murder of two children in the most
heinous manner – death sentence affirmed.
The Apex Court observed that the present case consists
of a shocking crime in as much as a young 10 year old
girl was first horribly gangraped after which she and her
brother aged 7 years were done away with while they were
conscious by throwing them into a canal which caused
their death by drowning. Further, the Apex Court noted
that the trial court and High Court have correctly applied
and balanced aggravating circumstances with mitigating
circumstances to find that the crime committed was cold
blooded and involved the rape of a minor girl and murder
of two children in the most heinous fashion possible.
Manoharan v. State: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1433
HELD: Dissent by one judge not a bar for upholding
death penalty: SC rejects review petition of death
convict.
Section 164 Cr.P.C: It is not mandatory that a
confession or statement under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure should necessarily be made
in the presence of the advocate(s) except when such
confessional statement is recorded with audio-video
electronic means.
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
Manoharan whose death penalty was upheld a few months
ago for gang raping a ten year old girl and thereafter
murdering her and her brother. The Apex Court upheld
the death penalty and one judge of Supreme Court had
expressed his dissent against upholding death sentence.
Sri A.M.C.S. Swamy, ADE/ DPE/ Hyd (Central)
vs. Mehdi Agah Karbalai & Anr.
HELD: Sec. 193 Cr. P. C- When there is a express
provision in Special Act empowering the Special Court
to take cognizance of an offence without the case being
committed, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of
offence by Special Court is in violation of Section 193
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Hon’ble Court observed that as per Section 193 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court of Session
shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original
jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a
Magistrate except as otherwise expressly provided by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for
the time being in force.
Naval Kishore Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2019
(3) RCR (Criminal) 679
HELD: Victim has right to appeal under Proviso to
Section 372 Cr.P.C. against acquittal of accused- Such
an appeal has to be treated like a regular appeal and
no leave has to be sought in such a situation.
Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 956
HELD: Until explicit provisions are engrafted in the
Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, Judicial
Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a
person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of
investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred
on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation
and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in Supreme Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Two principal questions arose for determination of the
appeal: “(1) Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India, which protects a person accused of an offence from
being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends
to protecting such an accused from being compelled to
give his voice sample during the course of investigation
into an offence? (2) Assuming that there is no violation of
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, whether in the
absence of any provision in the Code, can a Magistrate
authorize the investigating agency to record the voice
sample of the person accused of an offence?”
In response to the first question, the Apex Court
supplemented its opinion with the decision in State
of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad which provided that
specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions
by themselves are no testimony at all, being wholly
innocuous, because they are unchangeable; except, in
 QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of
writing have been tampered with. They are only materials
for comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court that
its inference based on other pieces of evidence is reliable.
They are neither oral nor documentary evidence but
belong to the third category of material evidence which is
outside the limit of “testimony.”
In response to the second question, namely, whether in
the absence of any specific provision in the Cr.P.C. would
a Court be competent to authorize the Investigating
Agency to record the voice sample of a person accused of
an offence, the Apex Court answered in affirmative. The
Apex Court reiterated the principle that procedure is the
handmaid and not the mistress of justice. Further, the Apex
Court observed that if the legislature, even while making
amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No.
25 of 2005), is oblivious and despite express reminders
chooses not to include voice sample either in the newly
introduced explanation to Section 53 or in Sections 53A
and 311A of Cr.P.C., then it may even be contended that
in the larger scheme of things the legislature is able to see
something which perhaps the Court is missing. However,
when a yawning gap in the Statute, in the considered view
of the Court, calls for temporary patchwork of filling up to
make the Statute effective and workable and to sub-serve
societal interests a process of judicial interpretation would
become inevitable.
Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh:
2019 SCC Online SC 877
HELD: Magistrate could not be compelled to take
cognizance by treating the protest petition as a
complaint.
The Supreme Court observed that a protest petition can
be treated as a complaint and the magistrate can deal
with the same as required under Section 200 read with
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it
fulfills the requirements of a complaint. It observed that
when the Magistrate does not treat the protest petition as a
complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file
a fresh complaint.
Suryakant Baburao v. State of Maharashtra and
Others: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 944
HELD: The courts must not only keep in view the right
of the accused, but must also keep in view the interest
of the victim and society at large. While it is true that
the sentence imposed upon the accused should not be
harsh, inadequacy of sentence may lead to sufferance
of the victim and the community at large.
Union of India v. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid @
Yasmeen: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 957
HELD: No room for invoking sympathetic
considerations where the intensity of participation and
involvement in terrorist activities were clearly made
out.
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
3
In present case A1 was propagating the ideology of IS and
advocating, among other things, war against non-Muslims.
The classes were attended by A2-Yasmeen. The videos
relating to such speeches were found with A2 when she
was arrested and was attempting to go to Afghanistan at
the instance of A1. The Court below recorded conviction
against A2 in respect of offences under Section 120B IPC
and Section 38 of the UAPA but was acquitted in respect of
charges under Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA. The judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Kerala gave rise
to two appeals, one by Union of India against acquittal
of A2-Yasmeen in respect of offences punishable under
Section 125 of IPC, Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA and
also against reduction in sentence ordered by the High
Court for offences under Section 120B of IPC and Section
38 of the UAPA, while said A2- Yasmeen filed appeal
against her conviction and sentence under Section 120B
IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.
The Apex Court observed that the intensity of
participation and involvement of A2 were clearly made
out. In the circumstances, there was no room for invoking
sympathetic considerations. The order passed by High
Court for reduction of sentence awarded to A2-Yasmeen
for offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of
the UAPA was set aside and the sentence imposed by the
trial court in respect of offences under Section 120B IPC
and Section 38 of the UAPA against A2 was restored.
Kathi David Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 966
HELD: Sec 53 Cr. P. C- DNA test should not be
conducted without carrying out any substantial
investigation by the police.
In present case the allegations against the appellant were
that he had procured false caste certificate by changing his
name and parentage and got employment on the basis of
the same. On 13.01.2016, an application was filed before
the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla requesting the
Court to direct conducting of DNA test of the appellant,
the mother of the appellant and the two brothers of the
appellant. Said application was allowed vide order dated
22.01.2016 and also upheld by the High Court. Both the
orders have been challenged by the appellant. The Apex
Court observed that there can be no dispute to the right
of police authorities seeking permission of the Court for
conducting DNA test in an appropriate case.
Section 53 Cr.P.C empowers the police authorities to
request a medical practitioner to conduct examination of
a person. However, in the present case, it was too early
to request for conducting DNA test without carrying out
substantial investigation and concluding that conducting
DNA test is necessary for the appellant on his mother and
two brothers. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court as well as the order of the Additional Junior
Civil Judge dated 22.01.2016.

4
Jagdish and Another v. State of Haryana: 2019
SCC OnLine SC 973
HELD: Conviction on basis of a solitary eye witness
is undoubtedly sustainable if there is reliable
evidence cogent and convincing in nature along with
surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a solitary
witness will therefore call for heightened scrutiny.
Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh:
Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2010: DoD 01.10.2019
HELD: Amendment in criminal laws beneficial to
accused can be applied in pending/earlier cases
The Supreme Court reiterated that if the amendment in a
criminal law is beneficial to the accused persons, it could
be applied with respect to earlier cases as well which
are pending in the Court. In this case, Trilok Chand was
convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He
was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.500. His revision petition was dismissed by the
High Court.
Amir Hamza Shaikh and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Another, (2019 SCC OnLine
SC 976
HELD: Sec 301 and 302 Cr. P. C- Magistrate is not
bound to grant permission, to any person to conduct the
prosecution or allow any person to instruct any pleader
to act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, at
the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the
Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The Magistrate
may consider as to whether the victim is in a position
to assist the Court and as to whether the trial does not
involve such complexities which cannot be handled by
the victim. On satisfaction of such facts, the Magistrate
would be within its jurisdiction to grant of permission
to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency
before the Magistrate.
Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another : 2019 SCC Online SC 898
HELD: Standard of proof for summoning a person as
an accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C higher than that for framing
a charge
Reiterating that the power under Section 319 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, the
Supreme Court has observed that the standard of proof
employed for summoning a person as an accused person
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of
proof employed for framing a charge against the accused
person.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. v.
Pramod V. Sawant & Anr. : 2019 SCC OnLine SC
1049
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
HELD: Section 197 Cr.P.C : Employees of public
sector corporations are not entitled to protection of
sanction as ‘Public Servant’.
Rekha Murarka v. The State of West Bengal and
Anr.: 2019 SCC Online SC 1495
HELD: Private counsel engaged by victim to assist
public prosecutor cannot make oral argument / cross
examine witnesses.
The Supreme Court has observed that victim’s counsel
has a limited right of assisting the prosecution, which
may extend to suggesting questions to the Court or the
prosecution, but not putting them by himself.
Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1247
:
HELD: Police cannot attach immovable property
under Sec.102 Cr.P.C during investigation.
The Supreme Court held that police does not have the
power to attach immovable property during investigation
under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, police does have authority to freeze moveable
properties of the accused.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited, Represented by Managing Director
(Admin. and HR) v. C. Nagaraju and Another:
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1192
HELD: Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar
an employer from exercising the power to conduct
departmental proceedings in accordance with the
rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal
and departmental, are entirely different.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State
of Gujarat and Another: 2019 SCC OnLine SC
1346
HELD: To say that a fair and just investigation
would lead to the conclusion that the police retain
the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod
under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence
till charges are framed, but that the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway
through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a
travesty of justice.
The Apex Court stated that the erstwhile Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 did not contain a provision by which the
police were empowered to conduct a further investigation
in respect of an offence after a police report under Section
173 has been forwarded to the Magistrate. With the
introduction of Section 173(8) in the CrPC, the police
department has been armed with the power to further
investigate an offence even after a police report has been
forwarded to the Magistrate. This power continues until
the trial can be said to commence in a criminal case.
 QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
Indian Penal Code
Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 493
HELD: Woman driven out of matrimonial home can
file case under Section 498-A from the place where
she has taken shelter at after leaving or being driven
away from the matrimonial home on account of acts
of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives.
Khushwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2019) 4
SCC 415
HELD: Sec. 302 I.P.C — Death Penalty — If the crime is
committed with such extremist brutality that the collective
conscious of society would be shocked and case falls in
the category of “rarest of rare case” then sentence of
capital punishment/ death sentence has to be affirmed.
In present case accused killed six innocent persons, out
of which two were minors below 10 years of age. All
the family members were done to death in a diabolical
and dastardly manner. The convict meticulously planned
the time. He first kidnapped three persons by way of
deception and took them to the canal and after drugging
them with sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at
midnight to ensure that the crime is not detected. While
affirming the capital punishment/death sentence, imposed
by lower courts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
aggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution
and against the Accused. Therefore, striking a balance
between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
the court opined that the aggravating circumstance would
tilt the balance in favour of capital punishment.
Girish Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand: 2019
SCC OnLine SC
HELD: If cruelty is not related to dowry, it cannot be
the basis of conviction under section 304B IPC
Before the presumption for Section 304B IPC is raised, it
must be established that the woman was subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment and it is not any cruelty
that becomes the subject matter of the provision but it
is the cruelty or harassment for or in connection with,
demand for dowry. If there is benefit of doubt, it must go
to the accused, and in case of two views, the view that
favours the accused, should be taken, which was more
so where the Trial Court’s decision was not manifestly
illegal, perverse and did not cause miscarriage of justice
and a court will not interfere with the verdict of acquittal
merely because on evaluation of evidence, a different
plausible view may arise.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra
Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr. : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1317
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
5
HELD: Road traffic offences can be prosecuted under
both IPC & Motor Vehicles Act.
The Supreme Court observed that road traffic offences
can be prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act as well as
Indian Penal Code. The bench observed, while setting
aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court to
States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura,
Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh that road traffic offences
shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of Indian Penal
Code.
Guru @ Gurubaran v. State : 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1269
HELD: [Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC] - Accused
party armed with weapons can’t claim the benefit of
sudden fight
The Supreme Court observed that when the accused party
came armed at the scene of crime, it clearly indicates
that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of
passion, upon a sudden quarrel to claim the exception 4
to Section 300 IPC. In this appeal the contention of the
accused convicted for murder was that the offence was
not of murder but may amount to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and that the case would fall within
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Aruna v. Mukund : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1269
HELD: Medical Negligence – Sec 304A of IPC - Trial
court should examine medical expert before framing
charges.
The Supreme Court reiterated that examination of
a report of an independent medical expert is crucial
before proceeding against a doctor accused of medical
negligence. Earlier, the Apex Court had in Jacob Mathew
v. State of Punjab &Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1, laid down
guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors for the
offence of criminal negligence, punishable under Section
304A of IPC.
Ranbir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand : Criminal
Appeal No. 1631 of 2019 (@ out of SLP Crl.) No.
5252/2019): DoD 04.11.2019
HELD: Proceedings u/s 218 IPC against IO, witnesses
cannot be initiated merely because prosecution failed
to establish its case.
The Supreme Court observed that merely because the
acquittal of the accused was premised on the assessment
that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, it
does not necessarily mean that the investigator and the
concerned witnesses ought to be proceeded against for the
offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

6
Indian Evidence Act
Digamber Vaishnav and Ors. vs. State of
Chhattisgarh: (2019) 4 SCC 522
HELD: Sec 27 Evidence Act,1872 —Relevancy is
nothing but the connection or the link between the
facts discovered with the crime.
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. : (2019) 4
SCC 556
HELD: Dying Declaration- sec 32 (1) Evidence Act,
1872 - Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C empowers Court to
proceed against any person not shown as an accused
if it appears from evidence that such person has
committed any offence for which such person could
be tried together with accused. It is fairly well settled
that before Court exercise its jurisdiction in terms of
Section 319 of Cr.P.C, it must arrive at satisfaction
that, evidence adduced by prosecution, if unrebutted,
would lead to conviction of persons sought to be added
as accused in case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that u/s 319 of
Cr.P.C, a person could be added as an accused invoking
provisions not only for same offence for which Accused
was tried but for “any offence”; but that offence shall be
such that in respect of which all Accused could be tried
together. As held in Constitution Bench judgment in
Hardeep Singh, for summoning an Accused under Section
319 of Cr.P.C, it required much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity which was lacking in
present case.
Ganesan (D) through LRs vs. Kalanjiam and Ors.:
Civil Appeal No. 5901-02 of 2009 (SC)
HELD: Not always necessary that attesting witnesses
should actually see the testator signing the Will
The Supreme Court observed that it is not always
mandatory that the testator must necessarily sign the Will
in presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the two
attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the will
simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other
and the testator. The Bench passed an order affirming a
High Court judgment in which it interpreted Section 63
(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and observed,
“Where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a
reasonable inference that he was admitting that the Will
had been executed by him”.
Sanjay Rajak vs. The State of Bihar : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 895
HELD: Failure to recover dead body of victim does
not entitle accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt.
The Court held that the said ground alone will not entitle
an accused to acquittal. Also, it is only one of the relevant
factors to be considered along with all other attendant
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on
reasonability and probability based on normal human
prudence and behavior.
In conviction by the High court pertaining to the case of
victim, a school going child aged about 5-6 years who
was kidnapped from the school& murdered, the police
failed to recover the dead body of the child. The SC held
that it is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence
that the failure of police to recover the corpus delicti
will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the
accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt. It is only one of
the relevant factors to be considered along with all other
attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding
based on reasonability and probability based on normal
human prudence and behaviour. It was further held that
the failure of the police to recover the dead body is not
much of consequence in the absence of any explanation
by the appellant both with regard to the victim last being
seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house
of the belongings of the deceased.
Bhagwan v. State of Maharasahtra Through
Secretary Home, Mumbai, Maharashtra: 2019
SCC OnLine SC 978
HELD: Sec 32 (1) IEA -Mere fact that the patient
suffered 92% burn injuries would not stand in the way
of patient giving a dying declaration which otherwise
inspires the confidence of the Court and is free from
tutoring, and can be found reliable.
Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan v. Central Bureau of
Narcotics : 2019 (4) RCR (Criminal) 250
HELD: NDPS : Reverse burden of proof does not
absolve prosecution from establishing prima facie case
against accused
The Supreme Court observed that, though Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act carries reverse
burden of proof, it does not absolve the prosecution from
establishing a prima facie case against the accused. The
bench was considering an appeal challenging conviction
of an accused under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the NDPS Act
sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along
with fine of Rs.1 lakh, with a default stipulation.
Jagbir Singh v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi): 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1148
HELD: Multiple dying declarations-If the court finds
that the incriminatory dying declaration brings out the
truthful position particularly in conjunction with the
capacity of the deceased to make such declaration, the
voluntariness with which it was made which involves,
no doubt, ruling out tutoring and prompting and also
the other evidence which support the contents of the
incriminatory dying declaration, it can be acted upon.
Equally, the circumstances which render the earlier
dying declaration, worthy or unworthy of acceptance,
can be considered.
 QUARTERLY LAW BULLETIN, 2020
Criminal Minor Acts
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(SC) : 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 918
HELD: Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Accused not
entitled to claim juvenility if date of birth recorded in
matriculation certificate or in other certificate found
to be incorrect.
The Apex Court held that there could be situation when
date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate or in
other certificate referred in Rule 12(3)(a) may not be
correct. In the present case matriculation certificate
indicated that the accused was juvenile on date of incident.
Whereas other documentary evidences collected by IO
such as driving licence and Aaddhar Card indicated that
accused was 19 years as on date of incident. Date of
Birth in Matriculation certificate was based on final list
of students forwarded by School. Accused was admitted
in school in 5th standard without any document. Date
of birth entered on the basis of information given by
parents. Record of earlier school attended indicated date
of birth as reflected and declared by accused in Aaddhar
Card and driving licence. The Court held that the accused
was not entitled to claim juvenility.
Khuman Singh v. State of MP : 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1104
HELD: Proof that offence was committed only
because victim was SC-ST member necessary to
sustain conviction u/s3(2)(v) SC-ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act
In order to sustain a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, it must be proved that the offence
was committed only on the ground that the victim was
a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Supreme Court
set aside the conviction of accused under the SC-ST Act
on the ground that there is nothing to suggest that the
offence was committed by the accused only because the
deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste
Satvinder Singh @ Satvinder Singh Saluja &
Ors. vs. The State of Bihar : 2019 AIR (SC) 3274
HELD: Section 2(17A) Bihar Excise (Amendment)
Act - Consuming liquor in a private vehicle in a place
accessible to public is punishable under Bihar Excise
Act
The Supreme Court held that a private vehicle is not
exempted from the definition of ‘public place’ under the
Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016. As per Section
2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act “Public
Place” means “any place to which public have access,
whether as a matter of right or not and includes all
places visited by general public and also includes any
open space”. According to the Court, the key word in the
Sensitised Police for Empowered Society
7
definition was “access”. Any place to which public have
access, whether as a matter of right or not, is a public
place.
Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 2019 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 964
HELD: Sec. 13(2) of prevention of Food Adulteration
Act & Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules Rule 9B
– The report of analyst must be furnished to accused.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal from the
judgment passed by the High Court by which the High
Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant
thereby affirming the conviction of the appellant. The
Apex Court observed that there is requirement to furnish
report of Analyst to accused. The Food Clerk claimed
to have dispatched report by registered post. However,
no evidence was brought on record to indicate that
report was actually served or delivered to accused. The
Purpose of furnishing such report is to enable accused
to seek for reference to Central Food Laboratory for
analysis if he is dissatisfied with report. Such safeguard
provided to accused is valuable right. In absence of
there being proof of delivery of report to the accused the
purpose of the provisions stands defeated & the offence
against the accused cannot be said to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The appeal was accordingly allowed
& the accused was acquitted.
Raj Kumar v. State of UP : 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1307
HELD: Accused charged with food adulteration
cannot be acquitted merely because deficiency was
marginal.
The Supreme Court observed that if the standards
prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, are not complied with, the accused charged with
adulteration cannot be acquitted only on the ground that
the deficiency is marginal.
State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Another:
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1408
HELD: NDPS- If a person found to be in possession
of a vehicle containing contraband is subjected to
personal search, which may not be in conformity with
the requirements under Section 50 of the Act, but the
search of the vehicle results in recovery of contraband
material, which stands proved independently; the
accused would not be entitled to benefit of acquittal
on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the
Act even in respect of material found in the search of
the vehicle because it is well settled that the mandate
of Section 50 of the Act is confined to personal search
and not to search of a vehicle or a container or
premises.
 It is the prime responsibility of every citizen to feel
that his country is free and to defend it freedom is his
duty. Every Indian should now forget that he is a
Rajput, a Sikh or a Jat. He must remember that he is
an Indian and he has every right in his country but
with certain duties.
- Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Sensitised Police for Empowered Society