Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Yogeeta Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 20 Feb 2023

Posted on February 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that,

From Para 4,

4. In the application form, the applicant, who applied for the post of a judicial officer did not disclose the aforesaid particulars and on the contrary said “No”. That thereafter, on the ground of suppression of facts and not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form, the services of the appellant as a judicial officer were put to an end by the Full Court of the High Court, which came to be confirmed on the judicial side, which has given rise to the present appeals.

From Para 6,

6. In the application form, the applicant, who, as such, applied for the post of a judicial officer was required to disclose certain facts, more particularly, the facts stated in Clause 18 of the Application Form and non-disclosure of true facts and not only that but saying “No” can certainly be said to be suppression of material facts. It was immaterial whether there was a closure report or acquittal or conviction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the particulars which were asked, whether “did you ever figure as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with result.” Therefore, the factum of figuring the name either as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case was required to be disclosed with full particulars and with result. Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea and/or defence that as a Closure Report was filed in the complaint in which she was the accused, the same was not required to be disclosed. On the basis of the nature of the allegations in the complaint either as an accused or a complainant, it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision whether to appoint such a person or not. What could be considered while actually appointing a person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision. The post which was applied by the appellant was a very important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial officer.

Yogeeta Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 20 Feb 2023

Citations :

Other Sources :

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 22,

22. Such a case was not at all made out by the prosecution in the evidence before the Court. The material brought on record by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is to the effect that Harpal Singh died due to injuries sustained as a result of an attack made by accused nos.1,3 and 4 on him by sharp weapons. These material circumstances brought on record against the accused on which their conviction is based were never put to the accused. What was put to the accused was not the case made out by the prosecution in the evidence. No questions are asked in the Section 313 statement about the post-mortem of the body of Harpal Singh. It is not put to the witness that the cause of death of Harpal Singh was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by sharp weapons. Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

Summary:

(credit: Pankaj Awasthi)

Citations :

Other Sources:

CrPC 285 – Commission to whom to be issued

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) If the witness is within the territories to which this Code extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found.
(2) If the witness is in India, but in a State or an area to which this Code does not extend, the commission shall be directed to such Court or officer as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.
(3) If the witness is in a country or place outside India and arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for taking the evidence of witnesses in relation to criminal matters, the commission shall be issued in such form, directed to such Court or officer, and sent to such authority for transmission as the Central Government may, by notification, prescribed in this behalf.

CrPC 284 is here. Sample is available here.

CrPC 284 – When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Court or Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of Justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness.
(2) The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution, direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused, including the pleader’s fees, be paid by the prosecution.

CrPC 285 is here. Sample is available here.

Sample Format of 284 CrPC petition for Issuance of Commission

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

One can rely on Cr.P.C. 284 and Cr.P.C. 285 onwards, to ensure the absenting prosecution witnesses are properly re-oriented, either to come to Court for Examination and Evidence or be ready to invite the Chief Judicial Magistrate to their home for the exact same purpose. The below sample is only for your guidance. Customize it to your needs and file.

Format-of-284-CrPC-petition-Sample for Issuance of Commission

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors on 27 Feb 2002

Posted on February 4 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court passed this Landmark observation wrt the Sec 5 of Limitation Act 1963,

From Para 12,

12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute “sufficient cause” or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors on 27 Feb 2002

Citations : [2002 SCALE 2 334], [2002 SCC 3 195], [2002 AIR SC 978], [2002 ALLMR SC 2 588], [2002 SCR 2 77], [2002 AIR SC 1201], [2002 SUPREME 2 143], [2002 RD 93 556], [2006 JCR SC 1 93], [2002 LW 3 417], [2002 UC 1 718], [2002 BLJR 1 794], [2002 MLJ SC 2 85], [2002 ALR 48 101], [2002 JT SC 2 349], [2002 AIR SCW 978]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/826396/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adbce4b01497114121f8

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Posted on February 4 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on landmark judgment here and here, Single judge bench of Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of 3330 days, considering the lapse was on the part of the advocate who did not file the Written Statement in the prescribed time.

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010

Posted on February 4 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows with respect to granting exemption from limitation under Limitation Act 1963,

From Para 7,

7. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining to condone the same. It is true that even upon showing a sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a liberal approach particularly when no negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the party.

From Para 11,

11.It is manifest that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependant on the actions of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010

Citations : [2010 SCC 14 419], [2011 AIR SC 0 269], [2011 LW 1 385], [2011 KCCR SC SN 1 44], [2011 MLJ 1 1010], [2011 LLN 2 43], [2011 CUTLT SUPPL 826], [2010 AIOL 787], [2010 ELT SC 262 3], [2010 SCALE 12 209], [2011 SCC L&S 2 581], [2012 SCC CIV 1 640], [2011 AIC 97 34], [2011 ALR 84 462], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 446], [2011 FLR 130 324], [2011 AIR SCW 269], [2011 JT SC 1 535], [2011 CAL LT 2 91]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29521266/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee4e4b01497114150a9

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: February 2023

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Yogeeta Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 20 Feb 2023

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

CrPC 285 – Commission to whom to be issued

CrPC 284 – When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued

Sample Format of 284 CrPC petition for Issuance of Commission

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors on 27 Feb 2002

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010