Appeal - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Be Guilty of Handling Stolen Goods If There Was No Theft

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Be Guilty of Handling Stolen Goods If There Was No Theft

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that a conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is legally unsustainable once the accused stands acquitted of the primary offence of theft under Section 379 IPC. The Court further held that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and cannot be reversed onto the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the disappearance and suspected murder of M. Narsalah on December 22, 2005, after he traveled to Warangal to collect outstanding business dues of approximately ₹2.92 lakh. When his phone was switched off, his cousin filed a missing person's report. The prosecution alleged that Narsalah's former employer and business rival, Accused-Moulana, murdered him, stole the cash, and enlisted t...

Supreme Court Rules Property Can Be Returned During Insolvency If Not Needed

This Supreme Court judgment affirms the paramountcy of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It clarifies that the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) does not bar the return of possession of a corporate debtor's leased asset when such a decision is a conscious business choice made by the CoC and the Resolution Professional to alleviate a financial burden on the estate. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the possession of a property leased by Nandini Impex Private Limited, the corporate debtor. The appellants had provided loans to the company, secured by the title deeds of the property's front and rear portions. Following a default, the property was conveyed to the appellants through separate deeds ...

UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act, emphasizing that a gang chart's approval requires independent application of mind by authorities and cannot be based solely on prior FIRs, especially without overt acts, violence, or economic gain. The judgment clarified the stringent conditions necessary for invoking the Act and upheld the importance of due process in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to quash proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against the appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal. The appellant was implicated in a "gang chart" based on previous FIRs. He sought to quash the proceedings and non-bailable warrants i...