The Supreme Court upheld CBDT Circular No. 789 of 13 April 2000, under which a Mauritian certificate of residence is sufficient evidence of residence and beneficial ownership under the Indo-Mauritius tax treaty, and set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment quashing it (para 140). A treaty notified under Section 90 overrides the Income-tax Act where inconsistent, ‘liable to taxation’ does not mean actual payment of tax, and treaty shopping is not illegal (paras 27, 75, 102, 113).
The Supreme Court acquitted a man and his mother convicted of possessing charas and ganja because the seized drugs were never produced at trial, the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer was not examined (paras 5-6, 9). "The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects" (para 6). A final report saying the laboratory report was awaited, filed after that report's date, added to the doubt (para 8).
The Supreme Court upheld the NDPS convictions of the occupants of a private car from which 820 grams of charas was recovered (paras 7, 30). Section 50 applies only to the personal search of a person, not to a vehicle, container, bag or premises (para 17). Once possession is established, the person claiming that it was not conscious must prove it, as Sections 35 and 54 recognise; the driver stood on no different footing (paras 27-29).
The Supreme Court upheld a Delhi Police driver's conviction under the Explosive Substances Act and TADA for keeping explosives, detonators and timers in a locked box in his quarter (paras 1-2, 11). Police witnesses are treated like any other witnesses, and "The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons" (para 8). The absence of public witnesses was explained by fear of terrorists (para 8).
A Constitution Bench held that "lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike" (para 35). Advocates holding vakalats cannot stay away from court on a strike call, courts need not adjourn cases because lawyers are on strike, and an advocate who abstains is personally liable for costs; protest must take peaceful forms that do not stop court work (paras 31, 35).
The Supreme Court set aside an NDPS conviction for possessing 11 grams of opium because the officer was not shown to have sent the recorded information to his superior under Section 42(2) and did not tell the accused of his Section 50 right. Asking him whether he should be searched before senior officers or a Gazetted officer was not enough; the accused had to be told of his right and given the option (paras 5-7).
The Supreme Court upheld an opium conviction although the seizure memo and samples were prepared at the customs office, not at the spot. A seizure mahazar should normally be prepared on the spot, but a procedural illegality does not make the evidence inadmissible; the court asks whether serious prejudice was caused. The accused was present throughout and no tampering was alleged (paras 10, 16-17).
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of a man caught with 7 kg of opium. The High Court had mentioned Section 37 of the NDPS Act but ignored its conditions, and granted bail on a second application without any change in circumstances. Under Section 37 negation of bail is the rule, and a repeat application without changed circumstances amounts to an impermissible review (paras 6, 8-10).
The Supreme Court upheld Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1987, which cancels agricultural leases of religious and charitable institutions except those of landless poor persons, reversing the High Court (para 17). "What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is class legislation and not classification for purpose of legislation" (para 8); tenants of such institutions form a separate class, and a law cannot be struck down on guesswork about how it will work (paras 12, 15).
The Supreme Court upheld an NDPS conviction for possessing 25 ampoules of Tidigesic, rejecting challenges under Sections 42, 50 and 57. Where information reached officers on patrol and immediate action was needed to catch the accused, not recording it first did not violate Section 42. Informing the accused orally of his Section 50 right is enough, and sending the FIR and records to the superior was substantial compliance with Section 57 (paras 7, 10, 12).
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a broker's conviction for dishonour of four cheques, each for crores of rupees, issued to Standard Chartered Bank in 1991-92 (paras 16, 39). It held that the presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are mandatory, that they "do not conflict with the presumption of innocence", and that they are rebutted only by proof making the defence probable to a prudent man (paras 21-23).
"To have speedy justice is a fundamental right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution", the Supreme Court held, suspending the life sentence of an elderly woman whose 1997 appeal had not been listed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (paras 1, 4, 5). It said convicts whose appeals are not decided within five years, for no fault of theirs, may be released on bail, and asked Chief Justices to set up regular benches (para 4).