(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial
in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation.—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981
This is decision from Apex Court of India which held that,
“It bars the use of any statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chanter XII, whether recorded in a police diary or otherwise, but by the express terms of the Section this bar is applicable only where such statement is sought to be used at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made’. If the statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under chapter XII is sought to be used in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial or even at an inquiry of trial but in respect of an offence other than that which was under investigation at the time when such statement was made, the bar or Section 162 would not be attracted.“
Citations: [1981 AIR 1068], [1981 SCR (3) 145], [1981 SCC (2) 493], [1981 SCALE (1)531]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/705101/
Other orders made in this case are here.
CrPC 190 – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
Subrat Kumar Sen Vs State of UP on 03 October, 2019
This is judgment from Apex Court which is hearing the contention, No Maintenance to Willfully Deserting Knife. Let’s follow the case.
Here is the Allahabad High Court order
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
M/S. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs Union Of India and Anr on 28 April, 2004
In this landmark judgment (per Obiter Dicta), Apex Court has held that,
A parliamentary legislation when it receives the assent of the President of India and is published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum.
The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.
Citations: [2004 SCALE 5 304], [2004 AIR SC 2321], [2004 SCC 6 254], [2004 BOMCR SC SUPP 2 654], [2004 AIR SC 2766], [2004 SUPREME 3 757], [2004 JT SUPP 1 475], [2004 ALLMR SC 5 700], [2004 DLT 111 480], [2004 COMPCAS 120 672], [2004 ELT 168 3], [2004 AIC SC 19 730], [2004 BC 3 56], [2004 COMPLJ SC 3 1], [2004 CTC 3 365], [2004 DRJ 77 317], [2004 ECR SC 114 1013], [2005 ECR SC 118 151], [2004 ELT SC 186 3], [2004 JCR SC 3 92], [2004 JT SUPPL SC 1 475], [2004 PLR 138 626]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1876565/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae06e4b0149711412bc2
See this, this, this and this Supreme Court Judgments. Many High Courts have relied on the above aspect of this Judgment here.
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. on 22 April, 1993
This a very good judgment from High Court of Bombay talking about binding nature of judgments, specifically termed as stare decisis.
Citation: [(1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom)]
Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/583752/
Patil Vijaykumar and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 1984
This in the judgment of Karnataka High Court on a Tax matter.
Key passage is this one:
But we wish to add that although a decision of another High Court is not binding on this court, we see no reason for not accepting, with respectful caution, any help they can give in the elucidation of questions which arise before this court.
Citation: [(1985) 151 ITR 48 (KAR)]
External Link: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/375809/patil-vijaykumar-vs-union-india
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
37th Edition of The Bar Council of India Trust All India Inter-University Moot Court Competition-2019
After the wonderful Moot experience at GITAM here, I embark on a more tougher Moot competition at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology at Bhubaneswar.
The Starters
Like previous Moot competition, even this one was a surprise for me. Was actually preparing for this moot at KL University.
The Team
My team this time consisted of folks who are all-new to a external Moot Competition. Just like I was, in the previous competition!
- Suprajaa Rajan
- Sandhya
Each of these individuals have contributed in their own capacities and time lines.
Both of them showed keen interest in Mooting and were eager to join in with us in our WhatsApp group to learn how we work towards a Moot competition
The Preparation
Here are the Memorials prepared for Moot Problem #1
Moot Problem #1
Petitioner Memorial
Will be uploaded once Competition ends.
Respondent Memorial
Will be uploaded once Competition ends.
The Journey
The Moot Experience
The Learnings
Article 136 of The Constitution Of India
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
