Acting on a habeas corpus petition about undertrials held in Bihar’s jails for years without trial, the Supreme Court held that speedy trial, meaning "reasonably expeditious trial", is "an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21" (para 5). It criticised the property-oriented bail system and said courts should release an accused with roots in the community on personal bond, fixing its amount individually rather than by the charge (paras 3-4).
The Supreme Court set aside a conviction under the Mysore Excise Act for possessing 48 bottles of liquor found in a car, because the Excise Inspector searched the car without first recording the grounds of his belief as Section 54 requires (paras 1, 3). That non-compliance rendered "the entire search without jurisdiction" and vitiated the conviction; a car is a "place" under the Act (para 4).
The Supreme Court set out four principles for discharge under Section 227 CrPC: the judge may sift and weigh the evidence to see whether a prima facie case exists; grave, unexplained suspicion justifies a charge; where two views are equally possible and the suspicion is not grave, the accused may be discharged; and the judge cannot act as a "mouth-piece of the prosecution" (para 10). It upheld the discharge of two officers accused of a land-compensation conspiracy (paras 25-26).
The Supreme Court held that "The prohibitive sweep of Art. 20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation", not only to the trial (para 58). An accused may refuse answers that tend to incriminate him in the case or in other pending or imminent accusations, and pressure, mental or physical, makes testimony compelled (paras 58, 60). Section 179 IPC needs mens rea (para 61). The prosecution of a former Chief Minister of Orissa for refusing police questions was quashed (para 73).
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's cancellation of bail that a Sessions Judge had granted to police officers, from a Deputy Inspector General down to constables, accused of conspiring to murder a man in police custody (paras 1-5, 27). Under Section 439(2) of the 1973 Code the High Court may commit to custody a person released on bail by any court, including the Court of Session (para 12), and the Sessions Judge had not given proper weight to the apprehension of witness tampering (para 23).
The Supreme Court upheld the conversion of a food-adulteration conviction to Section 2(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the mandatory minimum of six months' imprisonment, holding that food laws must be read so that no adulterator escapes (paras 4-5). The proviso allowing a lesser sentence did not apply (para 8). It criticised informal plea bargaining in food and economic offences and asked the Government to consider commutation (paras 12, 16).
The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of stealing three drums of chemicals from the Bombay Port Trust (paras 1-2, 19). Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the part of an accused's statement that is the "direct and immediate cause of the discovery" is admissible (para 12), and a presumption of theft under illustration (a) to Section 114 arises only as a necessary inference excluding every other hypothesis (para 17).
The Supreme Court restored a trader's acquittal for buying ginger without a licence under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, because the notification adding ginger under Section 6(5) was never published in a Gujarati newspaper as Section 6(1) requires (para 18). The word ‘shall’ is not conclusive, but language of compulsive force is "always of great relevance", and this requirement "is mandatory and must be fulfilled" (paras 13, 18).
The Supreme Court held that an inquiry by a Railway Protection Force officer under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not an investigation for Section 162 CrPC, so he may obtain witnesses' signatures on their statements (paras 10, 13-14). Filing a police report "is the hallmark of an investigation under the Code" (para 17). The High Court's acquittal was set aside (para 24).
Answering a Presidential Reference after the Gujarat Assembly was dissolved, the Supreme Court held that the election of the President must be completed before the outgoing President's term expires even though a State Assembly is dissolved (paras 4, 50). Article 62(1) is mandatory, members of a dissolved Assembly are not electors, and the resulting vacancies are covered by Article 71(4) (paras 15, 32, 36). In advisory jurisdiction the Court accepts the facts recited in the Reference (para 39).
The Supreme Court upheld a bullion dealer's conviction for possessing smuggled and undeclared gold. It held that "any person" whom a customs officer may examine under Section 107 of the Customs Act includes a suspect and potential accused, at any place including the Customs House, and that the gold-control penalty covers smuggled gold (paras 3, 15-16). Refusing leniency, it said professional economic offenders deserve jail (paras 18-21).
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of two appellants under Sections 342 and 353 IPC for forcibly bringing back and confining an officer who had searched their barrier office in a bribery trap. Even if the search breached Section 165 CrPC, "it does not justify any obstruction or other criminal acts" against the searchers (paras 7-8). Their conviction under Section 332 was set aside (para 8).