P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 27 January, 2010

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Again in this Supreme Court Judgment, it is affirmed that…

Section 227 in the new Code confers special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the records and documents, he find that “there is not sufficient ground” for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused. This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.

From Para 10,

If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

… And

It was pointed out that the confession of Constable Ramachandran Nair is inadmissible since this confession is made by an accused which cannot be used against a coaccused except for corroboration that too in a case where both accused are being tried jointly for the same offence.

P.Vijayan Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 27 January, 2010

Citations: [2

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to the principle if grave suspicion exist the trial court should commit the case to trial.

A lot of judgments are citing herein.

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Alias ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment from Apex Court based on Sajjan Kumar case affirms that the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud.

22) … In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skills.
23) A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.

CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012

Citations: [2012 SCC 9 512], [2012 SCC CIV 4 737], [2012 SCC CRI 3 1183], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 766], [2012 CRILJ 4610], [2012 KERLT 4 92], [2012 CTC 6 569], [2012 GUJ LH 3 373], [2013 LW 1 681]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186107198/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1ee4b0149711415a83

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Amar Kumar @ Guddu Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 April, 2014

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Patna High Court delivered this judgment finding that Grave suspicion exists against the accused hence his S227 CrPC application is rejected.

Amar Kumar @ Guddu vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 April, 2014

Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Apex Court regarding discharge of an accused under S 227 of CrPC.

In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002

Citations: [2002 SCR 1 75], [2002 AIR SC 146], [2002 CRLJ SC 980], [2002 SCJ 1 203], [2002 JCC SC 1 172], [2002 SCC CRI 310], [2002 AIR SC 564], [2002 SCC 2 135], [2002 CRJ SC 2 284], [2002 BOMCR CRI SC 612], [2002 CRIMES SC 1 243], [2002 SCALE 1 47], [2002 SRJ 2 475], [2002 CCR SC 1 61], [2002 SLT 1 99], [2002 JT 1 6], [2002 SUPREME 1 55], [2002 UJ SC 1 269], [2002 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 451], [2002 CRILJ 980], [2002 LLN 1 671]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1868789/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb6e4b01497114120c8

Index of Discharge judgments u/s 227 are here.

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Posted on June 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Supreme Court affirms that a prima facie finding of sufficient material showing grave suspicion is enough to frame a charge. This case is related to Mr. Sajjan Kumar Member of Parliament.

Comments by Judges from Para 16:

A Magistrate enquiring into a case under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. is not to act as a mere Post Office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of accused to the Court of Session.

From Para 17,Following principles have emerged

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Citations: [2011 PLJR 1 33], [2011 ALLSCR 0 24], [2010 SCC 9 368], [2010 MWN CR 3 325], [2011 MLJ CRI 1 552], [2011 AIR SC 3730], [2010 CCR 4 37], [2010 SLT 6 753], [2011 CUTLT SUPPL 252], [2010 AIOL 625], [2010 JT 10 413], [2010 SCALE 10 22], [2010 SCC CRI 3 1371], [2010 AIC 95 115]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68365/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee3e4b0149711415065

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 November, 1978

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court whereby a person is discharged under section 227 Cr.P.C. from the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.

From Para 3

The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of section 227 of the Code, the matter was thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

From Para 5,

Thus, it would appear that the legislature while dispensing with the procedure for commitment enquiry
under the Code of 1898 has conferred a dual responsibility on the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded by the police and the documents filed with a view to find out whether a prima facie case for trial has been made out and then if such a case is made out to proceed to try the same. In our view the legislature has adopted this course in order to avoid frivolous prosecutions and prevent the accused from being tried of an offence on materials which do not furnish
a reasonable probability of conviction.

From Para 7,

At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

Few terms used by Hon’ble Justices of Apex Court in earlier judgments are

… Magistrate … is not to act as a mere Post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution
Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine.

Following principles have emerged

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

Citations: [1979 SCR 2 229], [1979 AIR SC 366], [1979 MLJ CRI 361], [1979 SCC 3 4], [1979 CRILJ 154], [1979 SCC CRI 609]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1360078/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5de

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Damanpreet Kaur Vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very good and straight-forward judgment from Justice Pratibha Rani of Delhi High Court in a case under PWDV Act.

If the Knife had good academics, had worked in past and sitting idle now just awaiting dole outs into her begging bowl, that proves two things

Capability to work
Malafide Intention to harass husband

Damanpreet Kaur Vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark case, Supreme Court clarified the position on whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”

Trivia: The victim Lalita Kumari is recovered here.

Conclusion/Directions:

111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

Citation: [(2014) 2 SCC 1], [2014 JCC SC 1 1], [2013 SCALE 13 559], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 979], [2014 AIR SC 187], [2013 JT 14 399], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 243], [2013 AIOL 744], [2013 SLT 9 1], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 680], [2013 SUPREME 8 1], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 488], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4444], [2013 AIR SC 6386], [2014 SCC CRI 1 524], [2014 SCC 2 1], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 999], [2013 CTC 6 353], [2013 KERLT 4 632], [2014 CRILJ 470], [2014 AIC 134 155], [2013 KLJ 4 686], [2014 ECRN 1 180], [2014 KCCR 2 1305], [2014 CHN 2 7], [2013 PLJR 4 504], [2014 GLT SC 2 1], [2013 KHC 4 552], [2014 NCC 1 161], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 100], [2014 ALLCC 84 719], [2014 SCJ 1 68], [2014 GLD SC 2 355], [2013 JLJR 4 505], [2013 UC 3 2017], [2013 MPHT SC 5 336], [2013 AD SC 12 209], [2014 OLR 1 5], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 159], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 579], [2014 LW CRL 1 1], [2014 CHN SC 2 7], [2014 OLR SC 1 5], [2013 KLT SC 4 632], [2013 ALLMR CRI 4444], [2013 KLT 4 632], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 579], [2013 BOMCR CRI 4 680], [2014 CRI LJ 470], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 979], [2013 JT SC 14 399], [2013 AIR SCW 6386]

N. Purushotham Vs The Government Of Telangana Rep. on 10 September, 2014

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the Notice issued by the Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station in accordance with and in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as ‘the Code’), as bad in law.

However, even assuming that the allegation made by the petitioner against the Police that he has been detained from 9-30 am to 8-30 pm in the Police Station continuously for eleven long hours is true and correct, the same would not render the exercise of power under Section 41-A of the Code by the Police arbitrary. At the most, any such conduct and attitude of the Police would amount to violation of the human rights assured to the petitioner. Any complaint of breach of human rights by the Police, first of all, should have been drawn to the attention of the Superior Police Officers, such as, the Assistant Commissioner of Police / Deputy Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police, etc. If there was no redressal at their hands, the matter can also be agitated before the State Human Rights Commission. But, that cannot be converted into a ground for quashing the Notice under Section 41A of the Code.

N. Purushotham Vs The Government Of Telangana Rep. on 10 September, 2014

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: June 2018

P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 27 January, 2010

Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018

CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012

Amar Kumar @ Guddu Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 April, 2014

Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002

Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 November, 1978

Damanpreet Kaur Vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013

N. Purushotham Vs The Government Of Telangana Rep. on 10 September, 2014