"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well."

-Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.

Friday, October 24, 2008

SC Judgements

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal No. 6244 of 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3802/07) decided on October 21, 2008 by S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide on whether the Service Charge received by the appellant- assessee from the activity of producing Heavy Water can be considered as Profit for the purposes of Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Bal Kishan v. State of Himachal Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1571 of 2008) decided on October 22, 2008 by Arijith Pasayat and Mukundan Sharma, JJ

The court allowed the appeal finding that there is not enough evidence against the appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix that the assailants were referring to each other using names and the name of the appellant happened to be the same as one among them is not enough evidence to find guilt, especially due the fact the identification parade was not properly conducted and have no value in the eye of law.
The issue here is the way the police had conducted the identification parade. Prosecutrix have admitted that police have shown her the accused persons before the parade. The test identification parade thereby lost its evidentiary value. This reveals the sorry state of investigation of crimes by the police, which becomes self-defeating and puts a heavy cost on dispensation of justice.


No comments: