Theory of Abrogation

LEGAL UPDATES
Issue 01 01st Jan. to 31st Jan. 2024

Start your preparation of Judicial Service at

home with our membership plan.
For more details drop a message on WhatsApp
on this number: 8840961324
For our online courses visit:
www.theoryofabrogation.com
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 1. Case: Perumal Raja @ Perumal Vs. State
[4th January 2024] Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
• Supreme Court has held that the expression 'custody' used in
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not mean formal
custody.

• The bench disagreed with the recent judgment delivered by a 3-judge bench
in Rajesh v. State of MP (2023) which held that Section 27 of the Evidence
Act is not applicable if the person was not in the formal custody of the police
as an accused in the case.

• The bench observed that it was bound by the judgment delivered by a

Constitution Bench in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya which held that
the bar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act applies equally whether or not
the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was
in custody at the time of making the confession.

• It also referred to Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh., (2014)

which held that the expression “custody” in Section 27 of the Evidence Act
does not mean formal custody but includes any kind of surveillance,
restriction, or restraint by the police.

2. Case: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of

[8th January 2024] India & Or
• Supreme Court sets aside remission of 11 convicts in bilkis
bano case and directed them to surrender in 2 weeks.

• The Gujarat government had granted a remission of their sentence following

a May 2022 judgment given by Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath in
Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujrat. The
remission should be considered in line with the policy of the State where the
crime was committed and not where the trial was held.

• The bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on October 12

reserved the matter for judgment.

• The Court held that the State of Gujarat was not the "appropriate
government" to decide the issue of remission as the trial was held in the State
of Maharashtra. So its order was held to be invalid.
• The court directed the convicts, to surrender in prison within two weeks.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 3. Case: S Rajaseekaran V. Union of India
[12th January 2024] and Others
• The Court given various direction as to comply the provision of
the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents
Scheme, 2022.
• The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
issued the following directions:
• Police Station shall inform in writing to the injured or the legal
representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, that compensation can be
claimed under the Scheme 2022.
• The officer in charge of the Police Station, within one month from the date
ofthe accident, shall forward the First Accident Report (FAR) to the Claims
Enquiry Officer as provided in sub-clause (1) of clause 21 of the Scheme.
• A Monitoring Committee shall be constituted at every district level consisting
ofthe Secretary of the District Legal Service Authority, the Claims Enquiry
Officer of the district or, if there is more than one, the Claim Enquiry Officer
nominated by the State Government, and a police officer not below the level
of Deputy Superintendent of Police as may be nominated by the District
Superintendent of Police.
• The Claims Enquiry Officer shall ensure that a report containing his
recommendation and other documents are forwarded to the Claim Settlement
Commissioner within one month from receipt of the claim application..

4. Case: Asma Lateef & Anr. V. Shabbir

[13th January 2024] Ahmad & Ors
• Supreme Court held that under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC a suit
can't be decreed merely on defendant's failure to file written
statement if plaintiff's case isn't proved.

• The Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind

Kumar observed that the failure on the part of the defendant to file the written
statement within the time permitted by the court would not tantamount to
pronouncement of judgment against the defendant, when it is incumbent upon
the plaintiff to prove the case by adducing evidence.
• The Court referred to Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, states as
follows :
• "Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or
9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as
the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make
such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of
such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up".

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 5. Case: Ramalingam & Ors. V. N.
[18th January 2024] Viswanathan
• Supreme Court observed that expert testimony of the doctor
who performed the autopsy of the deceased cannot be
completely ignored while deciding the guilt of an accused.

• In this case it was alleged by the husband that three persons had assaulted his
deceased wife with stick and kicks on her chest and stomach which ultimately
ledto the death of the deceased. The entire controversy of the case revolves
around the expert testimony of thedoctor who performed the post-mortem of
the deceased. The post-mortem reportof the doctor has categorically stated
that the death of the deceased was natural coupled with the fact that no
external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

• On the basis of the post-mortem report, the trial court has discharged the
accuseds of the alleged offence. Assailing the order of discharge of the
appellants,the husband of the deceased filed a revision application before the
High Court,that allowed the revision application and remanded back the
matter to the trial court.

• The accused, who were already discharge of the alleged offence has preferred
the criminal appeal against the order of the High Court.

• The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heared the appeal and
has placed heavy reliance of the expert evidence of the doctor to come to the
conclusion that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but natural and
upholds discharge of accused.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 6. Case:Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. V. State
[22nd January 2024] by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
• Supreme Court explained Section 420 Indian Penal Code 1860.

• Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, observed that to constitute an

offence of cheating, merely committing a deceitful act is not sufficient unless
the deceitful act dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or any
part of a valuable security, thereby resulting in loss or damage to the person.

• The Court has quashed the criminal case filed by the husband against her wife
and relatives (appellants) on the ground that the wife's act of using her
husband's singature to seek the passport of her minor child for travel abroad
doesn't amount to committing an offence of cheating and forgery.

• It will not an offence u/s 420 IPC, due to the absence of a deceitful act that
resulted in a loss or damage of property to a husband. Further, the court noted
that the act of the wife also doesn't amount to forgery. According to court, the
offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the
dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.
• .. .
7.
[23th January 2024] Case: Pramila V. State Of Chhattisgarh
• Supreme Court acquits woman in 23 year old murder case
after finding her to be a juvenile at the time of offence.

• The fact of the case is that one Pramila-accused was convicted for
committing an offence ofmurder (date of offence being 15 June, 2000) and
was sentenced to undergo life-imprisonment by the trial court. Challenging
the decision of the trial court, theaccused preferred an appeal before the High
Court that maintained the sentence of the accused while dismissing the
appeal. It is against the impugned order of the High Court the criminal appeal
was preferred by the accused before the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan , noted
that at the time of occurrence of the offence, the accused was juvenile, and
therefore, the provision of old Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 shall apply on her,
which defines juvenile girl as someone who has not attained the age of
eighteen years.
• The court further noted that the imposition of the sentence of life-
imprisonment upon the accused is not justified as maximum punishment
under the JJ Act is to send her to a special home for up to three years. As she
already undeorgo 8 years in Jail so the court acquitted her.
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 8. Case: Central Bureau of Investigation V.
24th January 2024] Kapil Wadhawan& Anr.
• Supreme Courts held that default bail can't be claimed on
ground that investigation is pending against other accused.

• An FIR is lodged under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 477A of IPC, 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against Kapil Wadhawan and
DheerajWadhawan, of DHFL on the basis of complaint filed by the DGM of
Union Bank ofIndia on behalf of a consortium of 17 banks against Diwan
Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL). According to FIR, Wadhawan
entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown persons thereby cheating
and inducing a consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India (UBI) to
sanction huge loans aggregating toRs. 42,000 Crores approx.

• The trial court, after considering the relevant materials placed on record,
granteddefault bail to Wadhawans, noting that the charge sheet fi led by the
CBI isincomplete, just merely as a ruse to defeat the statutory right of default
bail to theaccused under Section 167 Cr. P.C.

• While allowing the appeal filed by the CBI, the Bench of Justices Bela
Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed that the High Court and the Trial Court
have erred in providing default bail to the respondents.
•.
9. Case: Municipal Corporation of Delhi V.
[25th January 2024] B. N. Magon
• Advocates' office run from residence not subject to property
tax as business building.

• A bench comprising of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih

affirmed that the "professional activity" of lawyers does not fall within the
category of "commercial establishment" or "business activity," and the firm
of lawyers is not a "commercial establishment. Finally the court held that an
advocate's office run from a residentialbuilding is not subject to property tax
under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a "business building."

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 10. Case:Krishna Sharma V. State of West
[29th January 2024] Bengal
• Bail cannot be cancelled merely due to non-appearance of
accused before court.

• The three-judge Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep
Mehta was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of the impugned order of the
Calcutta High Court cancelling bail.

• The High Court had noted that, on several occasions, it directed the accused
person to appear personally before the Court. However, the Court, while
cancelling the bail, had observed that neither the accused nor his lawyer was
present. It recorded that this non-appearance 'exposes an insolent stance of
opposite party No.2 to evade the process of law.' Against this backdrop, the
matter came up before the Top Court.

• Therein, the appellant's counsel apprised the bench of the reason for such
non-appearance. He submitted that there was a traffic jam due to VIP
movements and therefore, the appellant could not attend the Court. Besides,
the Counsel also averred that the appellant's lawyer was not present on the
concerned date, as hisVakalatnama was withdrawn.

• After recording the submissions, the Court observed that if bail has been
granted,the same can be canceled if any conditions are violated or liberty is
misused.

• The Supreme Court observed that, the bail already granted may be
cancelled,if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of
bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing
the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.”

• The Court held that the impugned judgment does not contain any of the
above-mentioned reasons. Thus, the Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's
Order.

Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025
 11.
[31st January 2024] Case: Sheikh Arif V. State of Maharashtra
• If consent of woman was based on false promise of marriage
from inception, then the offence of rape is made out.

• The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj
Mithal was deciding an appeal filed by a man challenging the refusal of the
Bombay High Court to quash the rape case alleged against him.

• In this case the man and woman maintained a physical relationship with for
four years (2013-2017) on the pretext that the man would marry the woman.
In 2018, the woman saw the pictures of the engagement ceremony of the man
with another woman, following which she lodged the FIR,alleging that her
consent was based on a misconception caused by false promise of marriage.
However, the man claimed that he had married the complainant-woman in
2017 and produced a copy of 'nikahnama.

• The Supreme Court after perusing the material placed on record observed that
the woman was above the age of 18 years when she consented to enter into a
physical relationship. The woman didn't object to the relationship for an
entire period of four years.

• Placing reliance on the observation above, the court observed that the case of
false promise to marry is not made out from the inception as sufficient proof
in the form of Nikahnama has been submitted by the man to prove that he
married the woman.

• Thus, the court held that the continuation of the prosecution in the present
casewould be a gross abuse of the process of law, as therefore, no purpose
would be served by continuing the prosecution against the man.

Note: All the legal updates are made in Concert with the provided Video, the notes are
not supposed to be functional on their own, for the optimum retention and
comprehension of the information given, always watch the video provided on the
YouTube Channel of Theory of Abrogation.
Social Media hyperlinks for all out accounts:
Follow on Instagram Page: Theory of Abrogation.
Follow us on LinkedIn: Theory of Abrogation.
Follow our Facebook Page: Theory of Abrogation.
Visit our Website: www.theoryofabrogation.com
Click here to view our YouTube Channel
Address: 13, Chand Complex, 4th Floor, Okhla Main Market, Okhla Head, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-
110025