Month: March 2019
Do New Rules Apply to Pending Cases? SC Explains Fair Penalties!
The Court emphasized that the purpose of substituting Rule 19 in 2011 was to reduce the penalties and better administer excise laws. Applying the old penalties to new cases would defeat the purpose of the amendment and disrupt fair administration (paras 32-34).
Are Multiple FIRs on Same Allegations Abuse of Process? SC Explains!
The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the second FIR. It clarified that the complaint at Udaipur was not prior in time to the complaint at Hisar and both FIRs had similar allegations, indicating abuse of the legal process (paras 8-10).
Can Sessions Courts Handle UAPA Cases? SC Clarifies Jurisdiction!
The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings under UAPA, as the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta had the jurisdiction to handle the case until a Special Court was designated by the State Government. The decision by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to extend remand beyond 90 days was deemed illegal, but since the accused did not seek default bail, this did not invalidate the entire proceedings (paras 29-30, 37).
