A murder accused raised a plea that the victim’s dying declaration could not be relied upon because it contradicted the prosecution’s case. The dying declaration contained three names: Ravi, Kumar and Mallesi. The prosecution, however, indicated two names. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that a comma had been used between Ravi and Kumar in the dying declaration. This gave the impression that Ravi and Kumar were two persons whereas the accused person’s name was Ravikumar. The court held that the name was split inadvertently and it could not be a ground for not relying on the dying declaration (Ravikumar vs State of Tamil Nadu).
Excise authorities asked a company processing duty-paid plain ceramic glazed tiles into decorated glazed tiles to pay excise duty. The company contended that its operations could not be termed “manufacturing”. Its process involved treating manufactured tiles with fire only for the purpose of fastening wet colours on the tiles’ surface. A tribunal ruled in the company’s favour and the excise authorities appealed against the decision. The Supreme Court held that in the case of manufacturing, there must be a transformation resulting in a different commodity with a distinct character and use. So the decorated tiles were not manufactured because the product was recognised as wall tiles both before and after processing. (Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Gujarat vs Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd).
A person’s licence to operate a sawmill in Uttaranchal was cancelled because he did not shift operations despite a relocation notice, as his mill was located at an aerial distance of four km from a forest. According to a Supreme Court order, the location of sawmills was prohibited within 10 km of a forest. The petitioner said that the distance of 10 km meant road distance. Dismissing the petition, the Uttaranchal High Court held that interpreting distance as road distance raised the possibility of circumvention, as roads need not always be straight, especially in a hill state like Uttaranchal. Therefore the petitioner’s interpretation diluted the rigour of the Supreme Court’s restriction. (Mohd Hazi Rafeeq vs State of Uttaranchal).
Solon
