The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocent might become victims of discretionary decision making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, [ Assistant Commissioner, Gadag SubDivision, Gadag v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa, 1995 (6) SCC 355]. Continue reading “In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation.”
It is well accepted that a statute must be construed according to the intention of the Legislature and the Courts should act upon the true intention of the legislation while applying law and while interpreting law. If a statutory provision is open to more than one meaning, the Court has to choose the interpretation which represents the intention of the Legislature. In this connection, the following observations made by this Court in District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co., (2001) 7 SCC 358, may be noticed: Continue reading “How to interpret a Statute [ intention of the Legislature ]”
The issue estoppel which is comparatively a recent development in the arena of administration of criminal Justice the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, Manipur Administration v. Thokchom , Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, , Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, , Mohar Rat v. State of Bihar, . In Masud Khan v. State of U.P., the principle of issue estoppel has been described thus. Continue reading “Application of Issue estoppel in the administration of Criminal Justice”
Supreme Court In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dasi [1955 AIR 566, 1955 SCR (2) 270] a question was raised whether previous judgment of criminal court convicting the son for murder of the testator father would be relevant in the subsequent proceeding for revocation of grant of probate. There also a question that fell for consideration was whether the son of the testator murdered him. Continue reading “Whether previous judgment of criminal court convicting son for murder of the testator father would be relevant in subsequent proceeding for revocation of grant of probate.”
The criminal court is not competent to decide a dispute of purely civil nature or a question of title involved in any dispute.
Supreme Court in V. M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was observed that the findings recorded by the criminal court stood superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court and there by the findings of the civil court got precedence over the findings recorded by the criminal court. In our opinion the relevant observation of the Supreme Court in that decision also will have to be understood not in a sense permitting its blanket application in all circumstances but only in the particular sense that responds to the circumstances in which such observation was made. Continue reading “Whether findings recorded by the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the criminal court.”