I. K.T. Palanisamy v.

State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (3) SCC 100 Criminal Law Circmstantial evidence Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, IPC 1860 Appellant and two other accused convicted of murder by Sessions Court based on circmstantial evidence PW1 to PW7 were related to the deceased and hence biased PW8 stated that M.O.1 to 3 were not recovered from him as claimed- Observed that no missing report was filed immediately The fact that the appellant was the last to be seen with the deceased was not mentioned in the firt information report Whether appellant could be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence gathered - Held, when a judgment is to be passed solely based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidentiary chain must be complete Here, even the fact of death was not proved and all witnesses were biased Cannot convict merely becase the appellant was the last person to be seen with the deceased Impugned judgment set aside Appeal allowed.

II. Union of India & Ors. V. Surinder Singh Rathore 2008 (5) SCC 747 Army Service Rules and Regulations Disability pension Army Rules 1954: Rule 13: Medical Service of Armed Forces Regulations, 1983: Regulation 53, Regulation 423: Pension Rules: Rule 173, Appendix II Appellant suffered from a form of eye disease called Maculopathy (RT) Eye Was discharged from the Army due to the disability Granted invalid gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity bt not disability pension Medical Board and Ministry of Defence held that disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service High Court held that Respondent was entitled to disability pension which was also upheld on further appeaal Whether Respondent is entitled to disability pension Held, entitlement to disabilit pension to be decided as per Appendix II As medical board was clearly of the opinion that the disability was not attribtable to or aggravated by military service, the Respondent could not be granted disability pension Appeal allowed.

III. M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltsd. & Anr. V. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector 2008 (7) SCC 196 Civil Laws Quality of drugs Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 25, Drgs and Cosmetics Act,1940 Appellant allowed to sell a particular drug in the market after quality confirmed by an independent laboratory Based on report of the Government Analyst of the Central Drugs Laboratory , Drugs Inspector claimed that the drugs were not up to prescribed standards Appellant denied allegation and attempted to adduce evidence to prove the Government Analysts report to be false Whether all requirements of Section 25 had been satisfied - Sectrion 25 requires four samples to be sent Fourth sample submitted to the Magistrate had to be sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory for retesting but this

was not done Secondly, proceedings were initiated a month before the expiry date of the drugs and it would be impossible to have them tested before the expiry date Held, rights accorded under Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) had been infringed Appeal allowed.

IV. Meharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1994 (5) SCC 188 Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code,1860 Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Appellant and two othe accused charged with murder of one, Lachman Singh Acquitted by Trial Court as FIR was ante timed and eye witness testimony was refuted by medical evidence High Court reversed Trial Courts decision with regard to the Appellant Whether FIR in this case has lost its value Held, FIR is of immense importance as it provides the earliest possible information with regard to the crime and delay in filing FIR leads to suspicions of embellishment Two parameters laid down by which Courts can judge lateness or otherwise of FIR First, whether the FIR copy had been filed late with the Magistrate and second if the FIR copy had been sent along with the inquest report Here, the first was not disproved and the second was not done Therefore, FIR has lost its value Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt Conviction and sentence set aside Appeal allowed.