Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
Author: ShadesOfKnife
K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005
Single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh held that, cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
From Para 3,
3. Since O.S. No. 1141 of 2000, later renumbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2003, was ordered to be tried along with O.S. No. 47 of 1998, obviously common evidence is being recorded in both the suits. When two suits are clubbed and tried together, all the parties to the suits have a right to cross-examine the witness examined by the adversary, because Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) confers such right on them. As per that Section 138 of the Act the witness called by a party shall first be examined-in-chief and if the adverse party so desires he can cross-examine him and then if the party calling him so desires, can re-examine him. That section specifically lays down that Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Casemine copy:
Legal Crystal copy:
Citations : [2006 ALD 1 370], legalcrystal.com/442436
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166172/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f85de4b01497111422e0
https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/442436/k-c-kanniyappa-vs-lalitha-anr
In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
Supreme Court in this Suo moto Civil Writ Petition, had extended the limitation period from 15 March 2020 until further orders, due to the situation created by COVID-19
On 06-05-2020, The limitation was extended for all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders.
RBI was allowed to decide on the extension of any limitation that may be available under Banking Regulation Act,1949.
With reference to the prayer, that the period of validity of a cheque be extended, we find that the said period has not been prescribed by any Statute but it is a period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. We do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, particularly, since the entire banking system functions on the basis of the period so prescribed.
The Reserve Bank of India may in its discretion, alter such period as it thinks fit. Ordered accordingly.
Also on 20-07-2020, Whatsapp was allowed as one of the mode of serving notices.
Service of notices, summons and exchange of pleadings/documents, is a requirement of virtually every legal proceeding. Service of notices, summons
and pleadings etc. have not been possible during the period of lockdown because this involves visits to post offices, courier companies or physical delivery of notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct that such services of all the above may be effected by e-mail, FAX, commonly used instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, if a party intends to effect service by means of said instant messaging services, we direct that in addition thereto, the party must also effect service of the same document/documents by e-mail, simultaneously on the same date.
Supreme Court heard arguments and reserved it’s orders. Related news here.
Final Order passed on 08-03-2021.
On 27-04-2021, within 1 month of passing final order and disposing the petition, COVID-19 cases started to rise, so Supreme Court had to restore the Order passed on 23 Mar 2020
On 23-09-2021, Supreme Court ended the relaxation given to the limitation via March 8th Order.
On 10-01-2022, Supreme Court had to restore the order dt: 23-03-2020 given relaxation to the limitation, until 28-02-2022.
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs UOI and Anr on 12 Apr 2012
Constitutional Validity of provisions of ‘Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short “the 2009 Act”) with respect to the unaided non-minority schools is decided in affirmative in this judgment by a 3-judge bench with a 2-1 majority.
Citations : [2012 AIOL 168], [2012 SUPREME 3 305], [2012 AIR SC 3445], [2012 SCC 6 102], [2012 SCALE 4 272], [2012 SCC 6 1], [2012 SLT 3 370], [2012 AIR SC 3400], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 2 775], [2012 BOMCR SC 6 711], [2012 JT 4 137], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 340], [2012 CUTLT 114 862], [2012 AWC SC 4 4260], [2012 MLJ SC 3 993], [2012 CLT 114 862], [2012 KARLJ 3 177], [2012 JLJR 2 324], [2012 CUT LT 114 862], [2012 AIR SCW 3400]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154958944/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1ee4b0149711415aa3
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Anr.
Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016
All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.
There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!
Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020
Single judge bench of Orissa High Court, in this bail matter, held that right to be forgotten (or left alone) is part of bouquet of rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
From Para 5,
5. While examining the pages of the case records, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has uploaded the said photos/videos on a social media platform i.e. Facebook and with the intervention of the police, after some days, he deleted the said objectionable contents from the Facebook. In fact, the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can’t get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Under the Indian Criminal Justice system a strong penal action is prescribed against the accused for such heinous crime but there is no mechanism available with respect to the right of the victim to get the objectionable photographs deleted from the server of the Facebook. The different types of harassment, threats and assaults that frighten citizens in regard to their online presence pose serious concerns for
citizens. There is an unprecedented escalation of such insensitive behavior on the social media platforms and the victim like the present one could not get those photos deleted permanently from server of such social media platforms like facebook. Though the statute prescribes penal action for the
accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. There is a widespread and seemingly consensual convergence towards an adoption and enshrinement of the right to get deleted or forgotten but hardly any effort has been undertaken in India till recently, towards adoption of such a right, despite such an issue has inexorably posed in the technology dominated world. Presently, there is no statute in India which provides for the right to be forgotten/getting the photos erased from the server of the social media platforms permanently. The legal possibilities of being forgotten on line or off line cries for a widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances. In fact, it cries for a clear cut demarcation of institutional boundaries and redressal of many delicate issues which hitherto remain unaddressed in Indian jurisdiction. The dynamics of hyper connectivity- the abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication network have redefined the memory and the prescriptive mandate to include in the technological contours is of pressing importance.
From Para 14,
14. Section 27 of the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 contains the right to be forgotten. Under Section 27, a data principal (an individual) has the right to prevent continuing disclosure of personal data by a data fiduciary. The aforesaid provision which falls under Chapter VI (Data Principal Rights) of the Bill, distinctly carves out the “right to be forgotten” in no uncertain terms. In terms of this provision, every data principal shall have the right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data (relating to such data principal) by any data fiduciary if such disclosure meets any one of the following three conditions, namely if the disclosure of personal data:
(i) has served the purpose for which it was made or is no longer necessary; or
(ii) was made on the basis of the data principal’s consent and such consent has since been withdrawn; or
(iii) was made contrary to the provisions of the bill or any other law in force.
In addition to this, Section 10 of the Bill provides that a data fiduciary shall retain personal data only as long as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is processed. Further, it imposes an obligation on every data fiduciary to undertake periodic reviews in order to determine whether it is necessary to retain the personal data in its possession. If it is not necessary for personal data to be retained by a data fiduciary, then such personal data must be deleted in a manner as may be specified.
Index of Article 21 case laws is here.
Ex Gratia Law Journal’s 1st Judgement Writing Competition 2020
After GITAM Moot competition here, I participated in this Judgement Writing Competition here with my partner Yashika Bhartia and here is the problem statement.
My Team won First place. The results announcement is here.
In case the page is kaput, below is the screenshot from that page.
Here is the Judgment I wrote. It is password-protected to prevent misuse like plagiarism. If you want to read it, contact me for password.
Next, I participated in PIL Drafting Competition on Constitution Day 2020 by NLIU LAC here.
Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 4 Jul 2013
Supreme Court passed these guidelines when a witness is called or recalled for evidence.
a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?
b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate,
inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.
c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.
d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for
such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.
e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it
apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to
arrive at a just decision of the case.
h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.
j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.
m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also
ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.
Citations : [2013 AD SC 8 583], [2013 AIR SC 3081], [2013 JLJR 3 447], [2013 JCC 3 2179], [2013 JT SC 11 118], [2013 NCC 2 582], [2013 PLJR 4 34], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 3 726], [2013 SCALE 8 316], [2013 SCC 14 461], [2013 SCR 7 420], [2013 UC 3 1631], [2014 SCC CRI 4 256], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 577], [2013 AIC 128 29], [2013 AIR SC 0 4179], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 CRLJ SC 3777], [2013 SLT 6 571], [2013 SUPREME 4 621], [2013 AIOL 432], [2013 KCCR SN 4 396], [2013 SCJ 7 986], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 35], [2013 AIR SCW 0 4179]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3583407/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2be4b0149711415b41
Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018
Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that, burden of proof shifting to accused in POCSO cases is not absolute and that the Prosecution has to establish their case on foundational
facts, only after which burden of proof shifts onto accused.
From Para 4, truth comes out.
4. It is admitted by the victim that Hindi books were found on her desk by the accused. The victim was suggested that since the Hindi books were found or discovered by the accused, she left the examination hall crying. The defence, obviously, is that in order to escape the consequences of the unfair practice while answering the Hindi paper, the victim falsely implicated the accused.
From Para 6,
6. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be understood and tested on the anvil of the golden thread which runs through web of the criminal jurisprudence system in this country that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt. In the factual matrix, at best, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing on record material giving rise to some suspicion. However, it is trite law that suspicion is not a substitute to proof. The gulf between “might have committed” and “must have committed” must be bridged by the prosecution by unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186788466/
