Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail.
Whether bias was caused by complainant also being the investigating officer? Whether alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses? Whether High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal?
(A) What is the scope and essence of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal? (B) What is the extent of reliance upon a document with which the other side was not confronted with during cross-examination? C) Whether non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?
We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
The original work in the temple is required to be restored. As assured by the Committee, let restoration work be done concerning eyesore painting by 15th December 2020. The Temple Committee is directed to ensure in future not to permit or resort to such painting and covering of the original work, objected by the Expert Committee. Let a report be submitted to this Court in this regard by 15th December 2020.
In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor.-Case overruled: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 [Complainant can not be Investigator]
Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.