Basic Legal Principles

Abatement ab initio Abstention doctrine Abstraction principle (law) Acquiescence Act of state doctrine Ademption by satisfaction Agent of record Allhusen v Whittell Alternative liability Assignment of income doctrine Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp Assumption of risk Attractive nuisance doctrine Audi alteram partem Beneficium inventarii Benefit of the inventory Best interests Blue pencil … Continue reading Basic Legal Principles

Unless there has been some violation of the principle of justice or some disregard of legal principles criminal appeal should not be entertained

Supreme Court-min

Kapildeo Singh vs The King –

First criminal appeal before the Supreme Court

The essential question in a case under s. 147 is whether there was an unlawful assembly as defined in s. 141. I.P.C., of five or more than five persons. The identity of the persons comprising the assembly is a matter relating to the determination of the guilt of the individual accused, and, even when it is possible to convict less than five persons only s. 147 still applies if upon the evidence in the case the court is able to hold that the person or persons who have been found guilty were members of an assembly of five or more persons, known or unknown, identified or unidentified. In the present case, there is such a finding and that concludes the matter.

(1950) Suppl. SCR 144

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

Kapildeo Singh Appellant
Versus
The King Respondent

(Before : B.K. Mukerjea, H.J. Kania, Meher Chand Mahajan, M. Patanjali Sastri And Saiyad Fazal Ali, JJ.)

Decided On: 24-01-1950

Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 302, 326, 304 and 149.

JUDGMENT

Mahajan, JThis is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court at Patna, affirming the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, under s. 147, of the Penal Code.

2. The appellant was charged along with 13 others with having been a member of an unlawful assembly “with the common object of dispossessing one Chulhan Tewari (the complainant) and assaulting and murdering one Nasiba Ahir and others” and with having committed, in furtherance of that common object, offences under ss. 302, 326 and 147 read with s. 249 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellant led a party of 60 or 70 men armed with a gun and lathis to the scene of occurrence with a view to dispossess the complainant of the land bearing survey No. 520 appertaining to Khata No. 59 in village Sikaria, which the complainant claimed to belong to him. As the mob came upon the land to complainant remonstrated against their action, when the appellant fired three shots from the gun in his hand causing injuries to Nasiba Ahir, Bhola Ahir and Lalmohar Ahir and when they fell down the mob dispersed. The injured men were then taken to hospital where Nasiba Ahir denied soon after. The appellant and thirteen others who were identified were accordingly charged with having committed the offences mentioned above.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge of Arrah who tried the accused found that, though the apparent title to the land was in the appellant and another, its possession had long been disputed, and that it was “needless to make much of possession because neither party in my opinion can justly claim the right of private defence to property.” After discussing the evidence of the eyewitness and other materials before him he found that the gun was fired by the appellant’s party while lathis or brickbats were used by the complainant’s men, and as a result of such attack and counter-attack one man was injured on the side of the appellant while three men including the deceased Nasiba Ahir who were passers-by received gunshot injuries. The learned Judge rejected as unreliable the evidence of the prosecution witness to the effect that the appellant held the gun and fired the shots. But as the appellant’s party went upon the land armed with the gun and as the persons injured were not of the complainant’s party, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under the second part of s. 304 read with s. 149 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. Though he found the appellant also guilty of rioting under s. 147 be thought that no separate sentence was called for under that section. The thirteen others who were charged along with appellant were held not guilty in respect of any of the charges, as they were not properly identified as having taken part in the unlawful assembly, and were acquitted.

4. The appellant appealed to the High Court and Manohar Lal J., who heard the appeal agreed with the trial Judge that the question as to who was in actual possession of the plot at the time of the occurrence was immaterial. He held that the party of the appellant were members of an unlawful assembly and “could not plead any right whatsoever to come there and assert their possession by show of force”. The learned Judge agreed also with the finding of the trial Court that the appellant was not proved to have been armed with a gun or to have fried the shots, but he thought, in view of that finding, that “it is impossible to convict Kapildeo Singh for an offence under s. 304,149, I.P.C., when it is not the prosecution case that any other member of the mob led by Kapildeo Singh inflicted the gunshot injury on Nasiba Ahir”. The learned Judge, however, was satisfied that the appellant was in the mob and was consequently guilty under s. 147 I. P. C. He accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence under S. 304 read with s. 149 but maintained the conviction under s. 147 and sentenced the appellant to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, the trial court not having imposed any separate sentence under that section.

5. A petition for special leave to appeal was made to this Court, and it was admitted in view of two grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant : (1) that in all 14 persons having been charged with rioting and 13 of them having been acquitted it could not be held that there was any unlawful assembly of five or more than five persons whose common object was to commit an offence; (2) that no finding having been given on the question of possession of the complainant, no common subject was established and the assembly was not an unlawful one.

6. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel raised a third contention that in the absence of a finding that any one of the members of the appellant’s party was armed with a gun, the charge under s. 147 could not be sustained because in this situation there was no evidence that any member of his party actually used force or violence in prosecution of the common object.

7. In our opinion, the first contention is without substance. The essential question in a case under s. 147 is whether there was an unlawful assembly as defined in s. 141. I.P.C., of five or more than five persons. The identity of the persons comprising the assembly is a matter relating to the determination of the guilt of the individual accused, and, even when it is possible to convict less than five persons only s. 147 still applies if upon the evidence in the case the court is able to hold that the person or persons who have been found guilty were members of an assembly of five or more persons, known or unknown, identified or unidentified. In the present case, there is such a finding and that concludes the matter.

8. The third contention is of no practical importance as we have come to the conclusion on the second contention that the case should be remanded to the High Court for rehearing.

9. In dealing with the second contention, it is necessary to refer to the charge under s. 147, I.P.C., of which the appellant has been found to be guilty. This charge runs as follows :-

“That you, on or about the 25th day of June, 47 at B. Sakaria P. S. Sandes were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly, viz., in dispossessing Chulhan Tewari and to assault and murder Nasiba Ahir and others and committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 147 of the Penal Code………..”.

10. By having the charge framed in this manner, the prosecution clearly took upon itself the onus of proving that Chulhan Tewari was in possession of the disputed land, and there can be no doubt that of the three items set out in the charge as constituting the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly, dispossession of Chulhan Tewari, the complainant, was the most important one, the other objects stated being more or less subsidiary to the former. The most important part of the charge, therefore, would have failed if the appellant had been found to be in possession and such a finding would have also seriously affected the case of the prosecution with regard to the second common object, viz., “to assault” because it would have at once given rise to the question as to whether the accused should be held to be protected by the law of private defence. Conversely, if Chulhan Tewari had been found to be in possession, the appellant could not have escaped conviction. Unfortunately, however, the learned Judge who heard the appeal in the High Court, did not apply himself seriously to the question of possession but proceeded on the assumption that that question was immaterial because “both sides were determined to vinditate the rights by show of force or use of force. In our opinion, the matter was not capable of being disposed of so simply and so summarily, and the law on which the learned Judge bases his opinion, would appear to have been too loosely stated. If by the use of the word “vindicate” he meant to include even cases in which a party is forced to maintain or defend his rights. Also, having regard to the nature of injuries on both sides, one party complaining that three passers-by received gunshot injuries and the other complaining that one or two persons received a few simple injuries, it is difficult to regard the occurrence as being in the nature of a determined battle between two armed mobs, in which the desire to fight and attack each other becomes a more important objective of the opposing mobs that the cause or subject-matter of the fight. We are clearly of opinion that it was incumbent on the appellate court to record a clear finding as to possession, and it is equally clear to us that its failure to record such a finding on a vital issue in the case, without deciding which the question as to who was the aggressor could not properly and satisfactorily be determined, is apt to lead to injustice of such a serious and substantial character as to warrant the interference of this Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court with the direction that the appeal be reheard and disposed of according to law after recording a definite finding on the question of possession.

11. The being the first appeal of its kind admitted by this Court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, it seems necessary to state that though this Court is no longer bound by Privy Council practice and precedents if sees no reason to depart from the principles which have been laid down by it defining the limits within which interference with the course of criminal justice dispensed in the subordinate courts is warranted and to remove all misapprehension on the subject, it would be useful to refer to some of the cases in which those principles have been enunciated and explained.

12. In Riel v. The Queen, Lord Halsbury, while delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council, pointed out that leave to appeal in criminal cases could only be given where some clear departure from the requirements of justice is alleged to have taken place.

13. In In re Abraham Mallory Dillet (2) it was observed that Her Majesty would not review criminal proceedings unless it be violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, substanviolation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been done. In Ibrahim. The King (3), it was observed that the ground for His majesty’s interference in criminal matters is the violation of the principles of natural justice. In Dal Singh v. King Emperor (4), the following observations were made on the subject :-

“According to the practice of the Judicial Committee in dealing with an appeal in a criminal case, the general principle is established that the Sovereign in Council does not act in the exercise of the prerogative right to review the course of justice in criminal cases in the free fashion of fully constituted Court of Criminal Appeal. The exercise of the prerogative takes place only where it is shown that injustice of a serious and substantial character has occurred. A mere mistake on the part of the Courts below, as for example in the admission of improper evidence, will not suffice if it has not led to injustice of a grave character nor do the Judicial Committee advise interference merely because they themselves would have taken a different view of evidence admitted. Such questions are, as a general rule, treated as being for the final decision of the Courts below.”

14. In Ex Parte Macrea, it was held that although in very special and exceptional circumstances leave to appeal in criminal cases may be granted, misdirection by Judge, either in leaving a case to a jury where there is no evidence or founded on an incorrect construction of the Penal Code, even if established, is insufficient for that purpose, especially where no miscarriage of justice has resulted.

15. In Taba Singh v. King Emperor, Lord Buckmaster expressed regret that the pains that they have taken to make clear the rules upon which the Board will proceed in considering questions relating to criminal appeals should have been so widely misunderstood or so wholly ignored as to have permitted the presentation of the petition in that case before him and it was said that the responsibility for the administration of criminal justice in India the Board will neither accept nor share, unless there has been some violation of the principle of justice or some disregard of legal principles.

16. In Easwaramurthi v. Emperor, Lord Wright observed that in a criminal appeal brought by special leave, their Lordships are not concerned with formal rules, but only with the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

17. In George G. Feller v. The King, Sir George Rankin pointed out that for them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so out rageous as to shock the very basis of justice and that misdirection as such, even irregularity as such will not suffice and that there must be something which in the particular case deprives the accused of the substance of fair trial and the protection of the law.

18. In Md. Afdal Khan v. Abdul Hahman, Viscount Dunedin made similar observations.

19. In Louis Edouard Lanier v. The King, the Privy Council held that although the proceedings taken were unobjectionable in form, justice had gravely and injuriously miscarried and the sentence pronounced against the appellant formed such an invasion of liberty and such denial of his just rights as a citizen that their Lordships felt called upon to interfere.

20. Following the principles laid down in these cases, this Court will not interfere lightly in criminal cases, and we have interfered in the present case, because in our opinion it can be brought with in the ambit of those principles.

 

Clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases.

Shanti Bhushan Vs. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Another [DECIDED ON JULY 06, 2018] “the power of framing roster which inheres in the Chief Justice has constitutional and statutory backing and by convention it is treated as prerogative of the Chief Justice” A.K.SIKRI, J. 2. The petitioner herein, who is a senior … Continue reading Clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases.

American Basic Legal Terms

KEYWORDS:-Legal glossary-Dictionary- A Acquittal-A jury verdict that a criminal defendant is not guilty, or the finding of a judge that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. Discharge from the Criminal charge. Active judge-A judge in the full-time service of the court. Compare to a senior judge. Administrative Office of the United States Courts … Continue reading American Basic Legal Terms

Principles for considering application for the Cancellation of Bail

 In ‘Kamar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan’, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180, it was observed that: “wherein it was observed that while cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the primary considerations which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with … Continue reading Principles for considering application for the Cancellation of Bail

Art. 136 it has been given overriding power to grant special leave to appeal against orders of Court and tribunals which go against the principles of natural justice and lead to grave miscarriage of justice.

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi and the Bharat Bank Employees’ Union, Delhi  Where the discretion is committed to any body or a tribunal exercising quasi judicial functions which are not fettered by ordinary rules of law, the tribunal should in the absence of any provision to the … Continue reading Art. 136 it has been given overriding power to grant special leave to appeal against orders of Court and tribunals which go against the principles of natural justice and lead to grave miscarriage of justice.

Legal Essays

Law Library On the request of some of my young friends, here I am putting some legal essays, hope these will help them for their forth-coming examinations. Most of the essays are collected and credit should be given to the original writers for their contributions. ROLE OF JUDGES RULE OF LAW THE RULE OF LAW OR RULE OF … Continue reading Legal Essays

State of Punjab and ANOTHER Vs Jalour Singh and OTHERS [ALL SC 2008 JANUARY ]

KEYWORDS:-Lok Adalat- AIR 2008 SC 1209 : (2008) 1 SCR 922 : (2008) 2 SCC 660 : JT 2008 (2) SC 83 : (2008) 2 SCALE 52 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) State of Punjab and ANOTHER Appellant Versus Jalour Singh and OTHERS Respondent (Before :  K. G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I., G. P. Mathur And R. V. … Continue reading State of Punjab and ANOTHER Vs Jalour Singh and OTHERS [ALL SC 2008 JANUARY ]

AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS [ALL SC 2010 JULY ]

KEYWORDS: Alternative Dispute Resolution- Arbitration HELD:- A civil court exercising power under Section 89 CPC cannot refer a suit to arbitration unless all the parties to the suit agree to such reference. If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. If the reference is to any … Continue reading AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS [ALL SC 2010 JULY ]

Whether the unregistered sale deed sought to be produced by the plaintiff in evidence in a suit for permanent injunction could be marked for a “collateral purposes”?

A Collateral transaction means, a transaction other than the transaction affecting the immovable property but which is in some way connected with it. Before adverting to the case law, I would like to give a brief prelude to the issue. The plain dictionary meaning of the phrase “collateral” is “additional but subordinate, secondary” (Oxford Dictionary, … Continue reading Whether the unregistered sale deed sought to be produced by the plaintiff in evidence in a suit for permanent injunction could be marked for a “collateral purposes”?

Sanjay Chandra Versus CBI[ALL SC 2011 NOVEMBER]

KEYWORDS:-BAIL In deciding BAIL applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. (2011) 13 SCALE 107 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Sanjay Chandra Appellant Versus CBI Respondent (Before : H.L. Dattu and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.) Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2011 (Arising out … Continue reading Sanjay Chandra Versus CBI[ALL SC 2011 NOVEMBER]

State of West Bengal and OTHERS Versus The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and OTHERS[ALL SC 2010 FEBRUARY]

KEYWORDS:- CBI INVESTIGATION-WRIT POWER- Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility … Continue reading State of West Bengal and OTHERS Versus The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and OTHERS[ALL SC 2010 FEBRUARY]

Sarika Vs. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors .[ALL SC 2018 MAY]

KEYWORDS:-  HINDU RITUAL- HINDU RITUAL- LORD SHIVA DATE:- MAY 02, 2018 ACTS:- WRIT PETITION SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Sarika Vs. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4676 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15459 of 2017] ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The petition pertains to famous Mahakaleshwar temple, … Continue reading Sarika Vs. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors .[ALL SC 2018 MAY]

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another[ALL SC 2018 MARCH]

KEYWORDS:-right to die with dignity- DATE:-MARCH 09, 2018 An adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices.  A person of competent mental faculty is entitled to execute an advance medical directive in accordance with safeguards as referred to above SUPREME … Continue reading Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another[ALL SC 2018 MARCH]

R G. Anand Appellant Versus Delux Films and others[ALL SC 1978 August]

KEYWORDS:- COPYRIGHT – COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES-Infringement of a copyright- DATE:-18-08-1978 AIR 1978 SC 1613 : (1979) 1 SCR 218 : (1978) 4 SCC 118 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) R G. Anand Appellant Versus Delux Films and others Respondent (Before : S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, Jaswant Singh And R. S. Pathak, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 2030 … Continue reading R G. Anand Appellant Versus Delux Films and others[ALL SC 1978 August]

Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab and another [ALL SC 2005 AUGUST]

KEYWORDS:- MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER- DATE :- 05-08-2005   AIR 2005 SC 3180 : (2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1 : JT 2005 (6) SC 584 : (2005) 6 SCALE 130 : (2005) CriLJ SC 3710 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Jacob Mathew Appellant Versus State of Punjab … Continue reading Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab and another [ALL SC 2005 AUGUST]

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India[ALL SC 1993 OCTOBER]

KEYWORDS:-ROLE OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA- DATE:-06-10-1993. AIR 1994 SC 268 : (1993) 2 Suppl. SCR 659 : (1993) 4 SCC 441 : JT 1993 (5) SC 479 : (1993) Suppl. SCALE 67 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent AND S. P. Gupta Appellant Versus … Continue reading Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India[ALL SC 1993 OCTOBER]

Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (D) through LRS. & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 FEBRUARY]

KEYWORDS:- LAND ACQUISITION – COMPENSATION- DATE:-8th February, 2018 ACTS:- section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (D) through LRS. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.20982 of 2017] Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & … Continue reading Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (D) through LRS. & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 FEBRUARY]

Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[SC 2017 December]

KEYWORDS:-  DE FACTO COMPLAINANT -SESSIONS JUDGE ALLOWED APPLICATION U/S 193 Cr.P.C DATE: December 14, 2017 The De-Facto complainant  filed an application under Section 193 of the Code in the Sessions Trial complaining therein that the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena though figured prominently in all the material documents filed … Continue reading Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[SC 2017 December]

Lachhman Dass Vs. Resham Chand Kaler and Anr[ SC 2018 January]

KEYWORDS :- regular bail-Challenging the order granting Bail- DATE:- JANUARY 23, 2018- The difference between the cancellation of the bail and a legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record is a settled proposition. A  VDO CD was produced along with the petition to peruse the Case before SC ACTS:- Sections 302, … Continue reading Lachhman Dass Vs. Resham Chand Kaler and Anr[ SC 2018 January]