Posting this Conviction judgment only for awareness of the visitors to this site, on the focal point that, how a baseless judgment looks like. Just 24 Pages. Judgment begins around Para 18.
Enjoy !!!
Author: ShadesOfKnife
State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr Vs Varla Ramaiah and Ors
After facing another slipper shot at AP HC here, State Government filed SLP(C) at Supreme Court.
On 05 Nov 2020,
Notice was issued to Respondents
Just for this, the following payments (total: Rs.20,16,667/) are made to 3 advocates.
- Dushyant A.Dave 11,00,000
- Shekhar Naphade 5,50,000
- Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki 3,66,667
Varla Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 16 Sep 2020
State Government issued GOs to review all decisions taken by TDP Government.
GO.Rt.No. 1411
GO.Rt.No. 344
Varla Ramaish garu filed WP at AP High Court and the honorable granted stay on the operation of both the above GOs.
As usual, State Government went to Supreme Court here against the stay Order given by AP HC.
Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018
Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.
From Para 7,
7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.
And from Para 9,
9. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39
Rithvik Balanagraj B and Anr Vs BCI and Ors
Two law students moved Karnataka High Court challenging BCI, KSLU decision to hold intermediate semester exams. Here is the Petition…
The Last status as on posting this message
Relevant News report: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/two-law-students-petition-karnataka-hc-circulars-bci-kslu-intermediate-semester-exams
Earlier News Report (wherein the PIL was dismissed): https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/law-students-move-karnataka-high-court-challenging-kslu-circular-for-holding-exams-165928
Kaushal Verma and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 08 Dec 2020
Supreme Court in this Order approved of Convenience Note submitted by Advocate Sumeer Sodhi to be a helpful aid that other Standing Counsels of States can follow as a Standard format.
In the end, we must observe that the presentation made by Mr. Sumeer Sodhi in the Note extracted above is an illustration how a case can be presented on behalf of the State. We may suggest that said Note may be taken as the Standard Format by all the learned counsel appearing for various State Governments in this Court. The Registry may circulate copies of this Order to all the learned Standing Counsel for the States.
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS on 26 Nov 2020
Supreme Court stayed the operation of AP HC Order of reinstatement of Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS and issued notices to him, DGP and UOI returnable in 4 weeks.
Here are the GOs issued by State Government of AP sanctioning Legal fee and expenses for the attending this case for the the arguing Senior Counsel and the AoR.
Senior Advocate was paid Rs.3,00,000/- (For this appearance)
=============
Advocate on Record was paid Rs.1,00,000/- (For this appearance)
A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 22 May 2020
The DGP of AP Police Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS was suspended and here is the GO.
Upon filing a WP at AP High Court, the above suspension was set aside and the officer was reinstated.
State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an SLP at Supreme Court here.
Asharam@Ashumal Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors on 12 Apr 2014
A academic query was posed to the High Court in these batch of Revisions as follows.
The thrust of the accused-petitioners in their arguments is to the effect that if charges under POCSO Act, 2012 do not survive then the case from the Special Court ( Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, who is trying the cases of POCSO Act, 2012) may be transferred to the regular Sessions Court where presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 will not be available against the petitioner and the accused-petitioners will be benefited accordingly.
And then after perusing provisions of POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, IPC, the Court observed and ordered as follows:
It has been argued on behalf of accused Asharam@Ashumal that at the most his conduct may come within the definition of attempted fellatio and he cannot be charged for the offence of fellatio. The conduct of the accused asking the girl to suck his organ is called fellatio. Had the girl started sucking his organ, it would have been argued that it was her consensual act. Certainly the charge of attempt to fellatio is graver offence than the fellatio itself. So, the charge even if it relates to fellatio, it will cover the charge of attempted fellatio and the accused is not going to be prejudiced when the charge of fellatio has been framed against him in place of attempted fellatio. Some times the prosecutrix, who is a minor girl may hesitate to tell complete truth before the Investigating Officer and many a times it happens in such type of cases that the prosecutrix unfolds the complete truth only during the camera trial when she is assured that nobody will be able to cause any harm to her because of her statement. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has mandated that in cases of Section 304 B IPC, a charge of Section 302 IPC should also be framed against the accused and on the same logic, this Court hereby directs all the trial courts in Rajasthan that in all cases of attempt to commit rape, a charge for the offence of rape should also be framed against the accused so that, at the stage of conclusion of the trial, the Court may not have to undertake tedious process of amendment of charge and recalling the witnesses causing serious prejudice to the cause of justice in such cases.
Citations : [2014 SCC ONLINE RAJ 1812], [2014 RLW 3 2596], [2014 WLC 4 481]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83475160/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea742f607dba36cc74581c
Sambhaji and Ors vs Gangabai and Ors on 20 Nov 2008
Supreme Court held that. ‘a Civil/Trial Court can accept the written statement even after statutory time limit of 90 days‘, as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1.
15. In the instance case the trial court proceeded on the erroneous premises that there was no scope to accept the written statement after 90 days. The High Court by the impugned order held that though it had power, no case was made out to accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be considered to be trivial or without substance. In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing acceptance of the written statement. The matter is not very complex. We request the trial court to complete trial of the suit within the period of six months. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Citations : [2009 ELT SC 240 1612008 AIR SC SUPP 7672008 SUPREME 8 7142008 SCC 17 1172009 BOMCR SC 1 812008 JT 13 442008 SCALE 15 5222008 AIOL 13332008 SLT 9 2982009 ALLMR SC 1 9212008 SCR 16 4692009 ELT 240 161]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90423/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae73e4b0149711413e98
