When to take recourse to S- 83 of Cr.P.C. regarding attachment of property of the absconding person ?

When section 82 of Cr.P.C. stipulates that the Court must have reason to believe that after the warrant was issued against the person, he has absconded or concealed himself somewhere so that warrant could not be executed for which he may direct for publishing a written proclamation, such belief must be based on concrete materials and in absence of such materials, the Court should not mechanically pass an order under section 82 of Cr.P.C. directing publishing a written proclamation.

Court has to wait until expiry of 30 days, to enable the accused to appear in terms of proclamation u/s 82 of Cr.P.C- Explain

Process under Sections 82 and 83 cannot be issued unless it is established that a warrant has already been issued against the person wanted and that person is absconding Section 82 Cr. P.C. mandates and empowers the Court to issue…

An absconder who has suffered a proclamation u/s 82 (1) or (4) CrPC. can be arrested without warrant by a police u/s 41 (c) CrPC : Explain

It warrants interpretation, construction and determination of scope and applicability of sub-sections (4 ) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as on the basis of isolated literal construction of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C., avoiding harmonious and Contextual interpretation, in relation to other provisions of Cr.P.C. and IPC.

How to frame Charge under CrPC- Model From

That you on 04.12.1980 at 3.00 p.m. at Galle Ki Mandi within Police Circle P.S. Firozabad South were member of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of common object of that assembly to murder (injure) Bengali committed the offence of rioting with a deadly weapon knife to stab Bengali and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. within cognizance of this Court.

Procedure in cases which Magistrate cannot dispose of – Sec 322 of CrPC

Various decisions touching upon Section 322(2) Cr.P.C. inform that the Magistrate to whom a case is submitted under Section 322(1) Cr.P.C. cannot act on the evidence recorded by the submitting Magistrate, but must, if he tries the case try it de novo (Manikonda Satyanarayana vs. State [AIR 1955 Andhra 44]; Panna Lal and others vs. State [AIR 1952 All 657]; and Sashti Gopal Samui and another vs. Haridas Bagdi [AIR 1938 Cal 415]).

Sessions Judge’s powers of revision – Sec 399 of CrPC

In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

Case of interlocutory order which could be corrected in exercise of criminal revisional power

In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) (supra) a distinction has been made between an order which is purely interlocutory which could be corrected in exercise of revisional power and an order though interlocutory which results in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi  Vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi and ors-01/12/1982

Section 482 of the present Code is the ad verbatim copy of Section 561 A of the old Code. This provision confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass orders ex debito justitiae in cases where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the Court has been seriously abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate Courts.

Power of Sessions Judge to summon persons other than the accused to stand trial in a pending case

Sarabjit Singh and Another Versus State of Punjab and Another-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 319—Summoning of additional suspect to face trial—Power under Section 319 is an extra-ordinary power which is required to be exercised sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against whom action has not been taken—Materials brought before Court must also be such which would satisfy Court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly—An order under Section 319 should not be passed only because first informant or one of witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s)—Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by Court so as to satisfy ingredients of the provisions—Mere ipse dixit or mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose—Impugned judgment set aside—Appeals allowed. Error! No text of specified style in document. vs. Error! No text of specified style in document.

Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand-20/09/1977

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.