LawforAll

▼
Friday, April 22, 2016

no offence is made out under Section 66 of the I.T. Act, read with Section 43. The appellant was a Director of Devi Polymers and nothing is brought on record to show that he did not have any authority to access the computer system or the computer network of the company. That apart there is nothing on record to show the commission of offence under Section 65 of the I.T. Act, since the allegation is not that any computer source code has been concealed, destroyed or altered. We have already observed that the acts of the appellant did not have any dishonest intention while considering the allegations in respect of the other offences. In the circumstances, no case is made out under Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000.The High Court seems to have over looked these circumstances and has merely dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that it requires evidence at a trial to come to any conclusion. We, however, find that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent constitute an abuse of process of Court and it is necessary to meet the ends of justice to quash the prosecution against the appellant.

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ...
Tuesday, April 19, 2016

the absence of visible injury on the body per se does not militate against the otherwise unambiguous medical opinion that the death was due to asphyxia. Breaking of bronchial tube is understandably a finding in endorsement of the above cause of death. Absence of visible injuries on the dead body, therefore as such, does not cast any doubt about the homicidal death of Jagram. This is also authenticated by the medical opinion that death had occurred between 12.6.1996 and 15.6.1996, i.e. during the interval between the abduction of the deceased and the detection of his dead body. “This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relive it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are ‘especially’ within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word ‘especially’ stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge.”

›
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE               IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA         CRI...

It is a settled principle of law that jurisdiction of Court under Section 11 of the Act is limited and confine to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the contracting parties and, if so, whether any dispute has arisen between them out of such agreement which may call for appointment of arbitrator to decide such disputes. Once it is held that disputes had arisen between the parties in relation to agreement which contained an arbitration clause for resolving such disputes, the Court should have made reference to the arbitrator leaving the parties to approach the arbitrator with their claim and counter- claim to enable the arbitrator to decide all such disputes on the basis of case set up by the parties before him. In this case, we find that the learned Single Judge did exceed his jurisdiction on this issue and hence interference to this extent is called for.

›
                                                              Non-Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    ...

This case, in our view, is a classic example of the abuse of the judicial process by unscrupulous litigants with money power, all in the name of legal rights by resorting to half-truths, misleading representations and suppression of facts. Each and every party is guilty of one or the other of the above-mentioned misconducts. It can be demonstrated (by a more elaborate explanation but we believe the facts narrated so far would be sufficient to indicate) but we do not wish to waste any more time in these matters.This case should also serve as proof of the abuse of the discretionary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 by the rich and powerful in the name of a ‘fight for justice’ at each and every interlocutory step of a suit. Enormous amount of judicial time of this Court and two High Courts was spent on this litigation. Most of it is avoidable and could have been well spent on more deserving cases.=This Court in Ramrameshwari Devi & Others v. Nirmala Devi & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 observed at para 54; “54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc.” We therefore, deem it appropriate to impose exemplary costs quantified at Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to be paid by each of the three parties i.e. GGL, MGG and RUIAS. The said amount is to be paid to National Legal Services Authority as compensation for the loss of judicial time of this country and the same may be utilized by the National Legal Services Authority to fund poor litigants to pursue their claims before this Court in deserving cases.

›
                                                                  Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   ...