Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Posted on October 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 84,

84. Lastly, we would also like to clarify that Section 179 of the Criminal Code permits prosecution of cases in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed or consequences have ensued. Section 186 of the Criminal Code relates to cases where two separate charge-sheets have been filed on the basis of separate FIRs and postulates that the prosecution would proceed where the first charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the FIR that is first in point of time. Principle underlying section 186 can be applied at the pre-charge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of
FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate. In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Code. However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principal FIR. However, this should not cause any prejudice, inconvenience or harassment to either the victims, witnesses or the person who is accused. We have clarified the aforesaid position to avoid any doubt or debate on the said aspect.

Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179868451/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/amish-devgan-versus-union-of-india-and-others

Kusum Bhatia Vs Sagar Sethi on 16 Sep 2019

Posted on October 23, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

In a short order, the Apex Court said this,

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the child, Kumari Preksha (aged about 16 years as of now) is awarded maintenance. Since, the petitioner is a working lady with sufficient salary, we decline to award any maintenance in her favour.

Kusum Bhatia Vs Sagar Sethi on 16 Sep 2019

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89241961/

Here is the Lower High Court Order:

Kusum Bhatia Vs Sagar Sethi on 27 May 2016

Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court declared that, Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken.

Reasoning

52. The matter can be looked at from different angle also. Once it is accepted (and there is no dispute about it) that it is not within the domain of the complainant or prosecuting agency to take cognizance of an offence or to issue process and the only thing the former can do is to file a complaint or initiate proceedings in accordance with law. If that action of initiation of proceedings has been taken within the period of limitation, the complainant is not responsible for any delay on the part of the Court or Magistrate in issuing process or taking cognizance of an offence. Now, if he is sought to be penalized because of the omission, default or inaction on the part of the Court or Magistrate, the provision of law may have to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. It can possibly be urged that such a provision is totally arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. It is settled law that a Court of Law would interpret a provision which would help sustaining the validity of law by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than making it vulnerable and unconstitutional by adopting rule of ‘litera legis’. Connecting the provision of limitation in Section 468 of the Code with issuing of process or taking of cognizance by the Court may make it unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

53. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a Court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/Court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings.

Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432851/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae4ae4b0149711413706

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held that, the defamation has to be filed with in time limitation while also referring to 468, 469 and 470 CrPC.

It would thus appear that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 468 which prohibits every Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is hardly necessary to say that statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. For instance, they shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. They also save the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosecutor. As has been stated, a bar to the taking of cognizance has been prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978

Citations : [1978 SCC 2 403], [1978 SCR 3 434], [1978 CAR 113], [1978 CRLR SC 158], [1978 SCC CR 215], [1978 AIR SC 486], [1978 AIR SC 786], [1978 AIR SC 986], [1978 SCC CRI 215], [1978 CRLJ SC 764]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/885750/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d573

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this Judgment regd

After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the propositions laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 I. P. C. it will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. If the statements or the words placed before the court by the complainant are held to be not defamatory, it will mean that the complainant will have to lose. Therefore it is to his interest to get a proper adjudication from, the court that as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also it is necessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet.

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1946272/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab73e4b014971140c842

Citations:

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

Posted on October 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment of single bench of AP High court. Useful in my DP3 WP.

From Para 10,

10. As can be seen from the aforesaid Section of law, when small quantity of Ganja is involved in commission of the offence, the imprisonment prescribed is for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. In the instant case, the Ganja involved in commission of the offence is only 600 grams, which is below the 1000 grams. Therefore, as per the aforesaid notification, it is to be held that the Ganja involved in this case is only a small quantity and an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act is only made out. So, the very registration of F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which is relating to commercial quantity, is obviously erroneous. Clause (C) of sub-clause (ii)(b) of Section 20 of the NDPS Act applies only when the Ganja involved is of 20 Kgs. as it is a commercial quantity as per the aforesaid notification. The said offence under Section 20((ii)(b)(C) of NDPS Act relating to possession or illegal transportation of Ganja of a commercial quantity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. So, when it is found that only a small quantity of Ganja of 600 grams is involved in this case, it is to be held that only an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(b)(A) of the NDPS Act is made out and not an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(b)(C) of the NDPS Act relating to commercial quantity. So, it is obvious that the police have registered the F.I.R. quoting a wrong section of law.

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55236845/

Citations:

PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution

Posted on September 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking inspiration from the article regarding the proposal of learned senior counsel K.M. Vijayan here, I decided in 2019 to explore the subject deeper in various angles.

Article 32(3) of Constitution of India says so,

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Statistics

S.No	High Court Name	Civil	Criminal	Total Cases	Pending Writs	% of Writs
1	Allahabad High Court	420,043	378,888	798,931	286,765	35.89%
2	Bombay High Court	462,687	92,129	554,816	128,649	23.19%
3	Calcutta High Court	188,685	36,436	225,121	–	0.00%
4	Gauhati High Court	44,289	10,527	54,816	23,217	42.35%
5	High Court for State of Telangana	211,877	36,335	248,212	129,727	52.26%
6	High Court of Andhra Pradesh	186,214	32,288	218,502	112 (Doubtful)	0.05%
7	High Court Of Chhattisgarh	49,575	28,077	77,652	28,517	36.72%
8	High Court of Delhi	72,414	26,526	98,940	41,854	42.30%
9	High Court of Gujarat	101,467	50,669	152,136	506 (Doubtful)	0.33%
10	High Court of Himachal Pradesh	69,976	9,831	79,807	13,045	16.35%
11	High Court of Jammu and Kashmir	43,622	6,788	50,410	21,048	41.75%
12	High Court of Jharkhand	41,539	45,885	87,424	26,710	30.55%
13	High Court of Karnataka	239,725	42,018	281,743	71,252	25.29%
14	High Court of Kerala	175,453	45,791	221,244	85,192	38.51%
15	High Court of Madhya Pradesh	250,808	154,057	404,865	119,088	29.41%
16	High Court of Manipur	4,304	457	4,761	2,354	49.44%
17	High Court of Meghalaya	1,308	160	1,468	747	50.89%
18	High Court of Punjab and Haryana	283,359	166,895	450,254	183 (Doubtful)	0.04%
19	High Court of Rajasthan	414,971	148,113	563,084	157,668	28.00%
20	High Court of Sikkim	174	35	209	101	48.33%
21	High Court of Tripura	1,368	235	1,603	620	38.68%
22	High Court of Uttarakhand	24,256	16,687	40,943	16,834	41.12%
23	Madras High Court	524,174	61,435	585,609	87,240	14.90%
24	Orissa High Court	130,834	52,746	183,580	81,447	44.37%
25	Patna High Court	111,608	114,222	225,830	76,495	33.87%

	TOTAL	4,054,730	1,557,230	5,611,960	1,399,371	24.94%

Source: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ; As on 28-Sep-2021

So, a total of 25% of the total cases pending

Identified the various stakeholders that may be impacted if this relief materializes.

If the Writs are allowed to be filed and decided at District Court level,

Litigant Public: The litigant public doesn’t have to incur huge expenses in traveling to the venue of the High Court, engaging a High Court advocate, Have it listed and then keep running expenses from time to time. They can filed their Writ at the District Court itself and engage a competent advocate locally and have considerably less expenses and less timelines to face.
Learned Advocates: Advocate can take up/file Writs at District level and they do not have to move the High Court. Those advocates who do not practice at High Courts currently, can very well handle Writs at District Court itself, by providing cost-effective legal services.
Hon’ble Judiciary at District Courts: Considering the current strength of the judges at Supreme Court (33 as on 27-09-2021), High Courts (633 as on 01-09-2021; 465 vacancies as per Vacancy report of Dept of Justice, https://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/vacancy-positions), District Courts (), and the constant onslaught of Writs being filed at High Courts year-on-year, it is near impossible for the 33+633 Judges to get a considerable grip on the Writ-pendency and dispose of the Writs in a time-bound manner. The District Judiciary also gets to work on one of the jurisdictions that they do not have access to, which is Writ Jurisdiction.

Considering the above facts and need of the hour, it is imperative that the Parliament makes a law (even for a limited time like a year) to decentralize the Writ jurisdiction and grant District judges (including Addl DJs, Special Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts etc) to take up and dispose Writ petitions at their level itself.

List of Goals here.

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018

Posted on September 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018

Citations:

Other Sources:

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Posted on September 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A saga of illicit relationship of 5 years between two advocates is twisted into a tale of rape!!!

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Online RTI Portal for State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on September 23, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Right to Information Act 2005 is a powerful tool in the hands of right people toward right causes. Many path-breaking changes in the public administration were brought about due to the fruitful use of the RTI Act. Union Government has setup an online portal for the benefit of public to be able to file RTI applications (for fee) and First Appeals (for free) to various Central Government Ministries, Departments, Agencies and other instrumentalities. Many States have already setup their own State-level Online portals to receive RTI applications. Now State of AP also has an Online portal to file/receive RTI applications and Appeals.

Andhra Pradesh: https://rtionline.ap.gov.in/
Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Union Territory): https://rtionline.gov.in/ (through the Central Government portal; select “UT of Andaman & Nicobar” as the public authority)
Arunachal Pradesh: https://rti.arunachal.gov.in/ (filing link from the official Dept of Administrative Reforms RTI page arungovard.nic.in/RtiAct.aspx; portal launch/operational state UNVERIFIED – it did not load during the 06-Nov-2026 check)
Assam: https://rtionline.assam.gov.in/ (Indian citizens; Assam public authorities)
Bihar: https://jaankari.bihar.gov.in/citizen-login-home
Chandigarh (Union Territory): https://rtionline.gov.in/ (through the Central Government portal; select “UT of Chandigarh” as the public authority)
Chhattisgarh: https://rtionline.cg.gov.in/
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (Union Territory): No verified online RTI route found
Delhi: https://rtionline.delhi.gov.in/
Goa: https://rtionline.goa.gov.in/
Gujarat: https://onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in/rti_portal/
Haryana: https://rtiharyana.gov.in/ (Haryana departments only)
Himachal Pradesh: https://onlinerti.hp.gov.in/
Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory): https://rtionline.jk.gov.in/ (J&K departments; Indian citizens)
Ladakh (Union Territory): https://rtionline.ladakh.gov.in/ (UT Ladakh departments only)
Lakshadweep (Union Territory): No verified online RTI route found
Jharkhand: https://rti.jharkhand.gov.in/guidelines.php?lan=E
Karnataka: https://rtionline.karnataka.gov.in/index.php?lan=E
Kerala: https://rtiportal.kerala.gov.in/index.php/login
Madhya Pradesh: https://rti.mp.gov.in/
Maharashtra: https://rtionline.maharashtra.gov.in/index.php?lan=E
Manipur: https://rtimanipur.mn.gov.in/ (only departments listed on the portal)
Meghalaya: https://megrti.gov.in/
Mizoram: https://rti.mizoram.gov.in/login
Nagaland: No State-wide online RTI portal found for fresh applications; file offline with the PIO (a separate portal exists only for the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench). Appeals and Complaints to the Nagaland State Information Commission can be filed online at https://services.nagaland.gov.in/
Odisha: https://rtiodisha.gov.in/
Puducherry (Union Territory): https://rtionline.gov.in/ (through the Central Government portal; select “UT Of Puducherry” as the public authority)
Punjab: https://rti.punjab.gov.in/
Rajasthan: https://rti.rajasthan.gov.in/
Sikkim: https://rtionline.sikkim.gov.in/ (launched 2025, per Dept of Personnel circular)
Tamil Nadu: https://rtionline.tn.gov.in/request/tstatus.php?lan=E
Telangana: https://rti.telangana.gov.in/
Tripura: https://rtionline.tripura.gov.in/ (Tripura departments only)
Uttar Pradesh: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
Uttarakhand: https://rtionline.uk.gov.in/index.php?lan=M
West Bengal: https://par.wb.gov.in/rtilogin.php (covers only the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept; other departments offline)

Efforts by Others

W.P.(C) No. 001040 – / 2019 Registered on 14-08-2019, Diary No.- 18483 – 2019 PRAVASI LEGAL CELL vs. UNION OF INDIA Here is the Final Order dt: 20-Mar-2023.

Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India on 20 Mar 2023

Updates: SC Issues Notice On Plea To Set Up Online RTI Portals In States [Read Petition] 26 Aug 2019 11:38 AM https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-to-set-up-online-rti-portals-in-states-147474 Last Order passed on 14-Oct-2019 States to file affidavit finally within a period of four weeks from today. The Union of India is also directed to file its affidavit during the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Online RTI portal: Supreme Court gives 4 weeks more to Centre, states to file replies on the plea Oct 14, 2019, 18:36 IST https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/online-rti-portal-supreme-court-gives-4-weeks-more-to-centre-states-to-file-replies-on-the-plea/articleshow/71582892.cms Online RTI Portal: SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea October 14, 2019 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/10/14/online-rti-portal-sc-seeks-centres-response-on-pravasi-legal-cells-plea/ Supreme Court issues notice to 25 high courts for not providing online RTI facility (PIL filed by Agra-based lawyer and RTI activist KC Jain) Jan 22, 2021, 04:30 IST https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-25-high-courts-for-not-providing-online-rti-facility/articleshow/80391316.cms

Efforts at AP State level

Two petitions are filed in 2023 (WP(PIL) NO: 191 of 2023) and 2024 (W.P(PIL).No.110 of 2024) seeking Online portal to file RTI applications. They are connected and the below is the recent order in these two connected cases.

G-Srikanth Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 Oct 2025

Today on 20-Feb-2026, came to know that the GOAP has issued a G.O. announcing the activation of a RTI portal for the State of AP. Great news! The G.O.Ms.No. 2026GAD_40543_MS25_E is given below.

2026GAD_40543_MS25_E

Today on 05-Jun-2026, I noticed that the Online RTI Portal is up and running here. Registered myself and it went through fine. Thanks to Adv VVSS Srikanth G for his sustained efforts since 3 years. Now the time to shoot RTI applications online. Happy.

My Efforts at AP State level

Before knowing about above efforts, I had sent representations to concerned government officials along with State Information Commission in 2021. (List of other State Information Commissions in India here) Since this issue is addressed, this post can be closed.

All my Legal Goals are listed here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Kusum Bhatia Vs Sagar Sethi on 16 Sep 2019

Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

K. Ranjith Vs State of AP on 01 Oct 2021

PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Online RTI Portal for State of Andhra Pradesh