State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai-01/04/2003

In the instant case, Doctor has refused to come to India to give evidence. His evidence appears to be necessary for the ends of Justice. Courts in India cannot procure his attendance. Even otherwise to procure attendance of a witness from a far a country like USA would generally involve delay, expense and/or inconvenience. In such cases commission could be issued for recording evidence. Normally a commission would involve recording evidence at the place where the witness is. However, advancement in science and technology has now made it possible to record such evidence by way of video conferencing in the town/city where the Court is. Thus in cases where the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience the Court could consider issuing a commission to record the evidence by way of video conferencing.

Continue Reading

RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION-Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused. If for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co­accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case.

A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co­accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. Section 30 applies to a case in which the confession is made by accused tried at the same time with the accused person against whom the confession is used. The confession of an accused tried previously would be rendered inadmissible.

ACTS: Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of TADA Rules

Continue Reading

Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER-02/01/2006

Section 156(3)-There is no particular format of a complaint. A petition addressed to the magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed, and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, as in the instant case, is a complaint.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Mohd. Yousuf

Versus

Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER

(Before : A. Pasayat And S. H. Kapadia, JJ.)

Cri. Appeal No. 2 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2305 of 2004),

Decided on : 02-01-2006.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing FIR—Registration of case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC—Magistrate can order investigation and registration of case before taking cognizance—Impugned order of High Court quashing charge-sheet on ground that Magistrate had no power to order registration of case unsustainable—Appeal allowed.

Continue Reading

M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER  VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020

Section 156(3) CrPCEven if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.

ACTS: Article 136 of the Constitution of India and Section 156(3) CrPC

FROM: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2011

M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER 

VERSUS

S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER 

ORDER

The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.

Continue Reading

Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005

Procedure for filing complaint in cases mentioned in Section 195 IPC

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 340—Procedure for filing complaint in cases mentioned in Section 195 IPC—Language used in the provision, the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b)—As the section is conditioned by the words “Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice”—Any interpretation which renders a victim of crime remedy less, has to be discarded.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Iqbal Singh Marwah and another

Versus

Meenakshi Marwah and another

(Before : R. C. Lahoti, C.J.I., B. N. Agrawal, H. K. Sema, G. P. Mathur And P. K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.)

Continue Reading

Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011

Bail proceedings amounted to judicial proceedings.

Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.

There is a legal bar to any Court taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court except on a complaint in writing, of that Court or by such officer of the Court as may be authorized in that behalf, or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. That a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 211 Indian Penal Code, “in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court”, is maintainable only at the instance of that Court or by an officer of that Court authorized in writing for that purpose or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, is abundantly clear from the language employed in the provision. It is common ground that the offence in the present case is not alleged to have been committed “in any proceedings in any Court”.

Continue Reading

AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020

The grounds raised by the petitioner that the Press interviews given by the persons in position of authority reported in the newspapers have influenced the decision of the President of India in rejection of the mercy petition is concerned, when the decision has been taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President of India it cannot be said that the President of India was influenced by such interviews reported in the newspapers.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.121 of 2020

(Arising out of W.P.(CRL.) Diary No(s). 10508 of 2020)

AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Continue Reading

A. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-It is now well settled principle of law that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to. Courts should avoid a construction, which would reduce the legislation to futility. It is also well settled that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. It is also trite that when an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the great consequences of the alternative constructions.

AIR 2006 SC 2677 : (2006) 3 Suppl. SCR 165 : (2006) 5 SCC 745 : JT 2006 (6) SC 89 : (2006) 6 SCALE 446 : (2006) CriLJ SC 3614

Continue Reading

R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another Versus State of TAMIL NADU and others-07/10/1994

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another

Versus

State of TAMIL NADU and others

(Before: B. P. Jeevan Reddy And S. C. Sen, JJ.)

Writ Petition (C) No. 422 of 1994,

Decided on: 07-10-1994.

Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32, 8 and 21—U.P. Police Regulations—Regulation 236—Public Order Act, 1972—Section 33(B)—Penal Code, 1860—Sections 499 and 500.

Counsel for the Parties:

Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocates for Respondents.

Continue Reading

Sham Singh Vs The State of Haryana-21/08/2018

Rape Case- Looking to the above evidence, it is amply clear that the case of the prosecution, as made out, appears to be artificial and concocted. It may not be probable to commit rape in one’s own house in front of the sister, children, wife and mother. If in actuality the incident had taken place, the medical report would have gone against the accused.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2018

Sham Singh

Versus

The State of Haryana

JUDGMENT

Continue Reading