Court held on the permission of investigation u/s 155(2) CrPC -
permission can be granted by the Magistrate on the basis of the application moved by the complainant or any other aggrieved person.
Jan 15, 2011
Jan 14, 2011
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450
In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed on power in appeal
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial courts conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial courts acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial courts decision. This is especially true when a witness credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.
Sent from my iPod
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial courts conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial courts acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial courts decision. This is especially true when a witness credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.
Sent from my iPod
Jan 13, 2011
Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra: AIR 1956 SC 217
Supreme Court Of India observed -
it is also dangerous to allow a man to be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntarily and unless he realises that anything he says may be used against him; and any attempt by a person in authority to bully a person in to making a confession or any threat or coercion would at once invalidate it if the fear was still operating on his mind at the time heal so dangerous to allow a man to be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntarily and unless he realises that anything he says may be used against him; and any attempt by a person in authority to bully a person in to making a confession or any threat or coercion would at once invalidate it if the fear was still operating on his mind at that time.
Sent from my iPod
it is also dangerous to allow a man to be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntarily and unless he realises that anything he says may be used against him; and any attempt by a person in authority to bully a person in to making a confession or any threat or coercion would at once invalidate it if the fear was still operating on his mind at the time heal so dangerous to allow a man to be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntarily and unless he realises that anything he says may be used against him; and any attempt by a person in authority to bully a person in to making a confession or any threat or coercion would at once invalidate it if the fear was still operating on his mind at that time.
Sent from my iPod
Jan 12, 2011
Krishna Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, Decided On: 31.03.2009
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed,
High Court has rightly noted that the conduct of the accused appellants before it had a striking feature in the absence of any reasonable explanation and is an inculpating circumstance against them
Sent from my iPod
High Court has rightly noted that the conduct of the accused appellants before it had a striking feature in the absence of any reasonable explanation and is an inculpating circumstance against them
Sent from my iPod
State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. – AIR 2010 SC 1299
amendment in application- where application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act has been made within the prescribed time, leave to amend grounds, in such an application, if the peculiar circumstances of the case and the interest of justice so warrant, can be granted.
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Nishant Sareen.
The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is as regards the extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Hon'ble Court observed
a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course.
Sent from my iPod
Hon'ble Court observed
a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course.
Sent from my iPod
Jan 3, 2011
Uma Shankar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr
On behalf of the Petitioner it was urged that when he was not named as an accused in the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance as far as he was concerned and the trial court should have waited till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. if at all the Petitioner was to be arrayed as an accused. Mr P S Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, reiterated the oft-repeated saying that cognizance is taken of an offence and not the offender.
Magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report.
Magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report.
Jan 2, 2011
Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghosh on 23.10.1924
There is a difference between object and intention, for, though their object is common, the intentions of the several members may differ and indeed may be similar only in respect that they are all unlawful, while the element of participation in action, which is the leading feature of Section 34, is replaced in Section 149 by membership of the assembly at the time of the committing of the offence. Both sections deal with combinations of persons, who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap, but Section 149 cannot at any rate relegate 34 to the position of dealing only with joint action by the commission of identically similar criminal acts, a kind of case which is not in itself deserving of separate treatment at all.
Abetment does not in itself involve the actual commission of the crime abetted. It is a crime apart. Section 114 deals with the case, where there has been the crime of abetment, but where also there has been actual commission of the crime abetted and the abettor has been present thereat, and the way in which it deals with such a case is this. Instead of the crime being still abetment with circumstances of aggravation, the crime becomes the very crime abetted.
Abetment does not in itself involve the actual commission of the crime abetted. It is a crime apart. Section 114 deals with the case, where there has been the crime of abetment, but where also there has been actual commission of the crime abetted and the abettor has been present thereat, and the way in which it deals with such a case is this. Instead of the crime being still abetment with circumstances of aggravation, the crime becomes the very crime abetted.
Dhapubai (Dead) Widow of Gopalji through LRs Vs Ghisalal and others
decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.01.11
Whether mere presence of wife in the ceremonies performed by her husband for adoption of child amounted to her consent as contemplated by the proviso to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or not-
The term 'consent' used in the proviso to Section 7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, while interpreting these provisions, the Court shall have to keep in view the legal position obtaining before enactment of the 1956 Act, the object of the new legislation and apply the rule of purposive interpretation...
Unfortunately, all the Courts completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of adoption was only as a mute spectator and not as an active participant...
By no stretch of imagination, this could be equated with her active participation in the adoption ceremonies so as to enable the Courts to draw an inference that she had given consent for the adoption of Ghisalal.
adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was not valid because her consent had not been obtained as per the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act.
Whether mere presence of wife in the ceremonies performed by her husband for adoption of child amounted to her consent as contemplated by the proviso to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or not-
The term 'consent' used in the proviso to Section 7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, while interpreting these provisions, the Court shall have to keep in view the legal position obtaining before enactment of the 1956 Act, the object of the new legislation and apply the rule of purposive interpretation...
Unfortunately, all the Courts completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of adoption was only as a mute spectator and not as an active participant...
By no stretch of imagination, this could be equated with her active participation in the adoption ceremonies so as to enable the Courts to draw an inference that she had given consent for the adoption of Ghisalal.
adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was not valid because her consent had not been obtained as per the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act.
Jan 1, 2011
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs State of M P, AIR 2008 SC 1943
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "The Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)