Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, after relying on Shivcharan and Sivakumar, held as follows,

From Para 14 and 15,

14. The ratio of these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that, if the marriage between the husband and wife ended as null and void, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that, PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires to be set aside.

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Post Views: 603

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 26,

26. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the
parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.

Citations: [2011 SCALE 2 703], [2011 AIR SC 1199], [2011 AIR SC 1459], [2011 SUPREME 2 174], [2011 AIOL 144], [2011 SLT 2 378], [2011 BOMCR SC 5 857], [2011 JT 2 540], [2011 SCC 4 363], [2011 MHLJ SC 4 104], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 880], [2011 ALR 86 59], [2011 AWC SC 3 2295], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 2 130], [2011 CLT SC 112 152], [2011 KCCR SN 2 124], [2011 LW 3 26], [2011 SCR 3 2172909 CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2913 2005], [2011 BOMCR 5 857], [2011 KCCRSN 2 124], [2011 RCR CIVIL 2 880], [2011 AIR SCW 1459]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912526/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af08e4b0149711415652

https://vlex.in/vid/c-no-002909-002913-852352762

Post Views: 744

Condone Delay Judgments

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

For various reasons, delay gets injected into Court proceedings especially when challenging a lower Court order/judgment before an appellate Court.

Supreme Court:

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011 [SC:]

Post Views: 706

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Posted on July 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.

From Para 24,

24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.
Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Post Views: 526

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice submits that the petitioner being a party to S.C.No. 94/2005 is entitled to get certified copies of the documents which form part of the record of the criminal case. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as follows:
“339.Copies to be given to parties:- Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying…..”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had been granted pardon and taken as approver nonetheless he remains a party to the proceedings and as such he is entitled to get certified copies of the documents as per the above said rules. In support of the above said
contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1600 (K.Ramaiah Vs. R.Sudhakara Naidu). In that decision referring to Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and other decisions of this Court, the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court cannot refuse to receive the copy application and it is bound to follow Rule 339 in so far as copies are given to the parties are concerned.

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

The Index is here.

Post Views: 626

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for issuance of copies to parties and it stipulates that copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorised fee for copying.

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006 (CK Ver)

The Index is here.

Post Views: 527

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever on the part of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. In refusing to furnish the certified copy of the docket sheet in Criminal Appeal Nos. 472 and 473 of 1999. After all the proceedings are not confidential but form an integral part of the judicial proceedings. The petitioner is undoubtedly entitled for the certified copy of the said proceedings.
4. In the circumstances, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad is directed to supply the certified copies of the docket orders of the proceedings on payment of usual charges. The docket orders shall be furnished by tomorrow itself.

LQ Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (LQ Ver)

CM Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (CM Ver)

The Index is here.

Post Views: 589

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Madras High Court held that docket order also forms part of court record, relying on the following rule.

Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as follows:

“339. Copies to be given to parties.” Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying.

New Rule 209 of The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 for Tamil Nadu read as follow:

209. Application for copies by a party.— Every application for a copy of judgment or order or proceedings (including docket order) or deposition of witnesses or original document filed in or in the custody of a Court shall be presented by the applicant or his advocate and shall set out the case or proceeding number, if any, the name of the applicant, his position in the case or proceeding as the case may be, the name of the advocate, if any, and description of the proceeding or document of which a copy is required.

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991 (CM Ver)

The Index is here.

Post Views: 544

Certified Copies of Docket Orders

Posted on July 11, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Obtaining certified copies of the docket order in any case must not be a pain in the back. Rely on the following remedies in case of any trouble are the Court section offices.

Rules:

The Rule 212 of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules Of Practice And Circular Orders, 1990 is as follows,

212. Copies to be given to parties:-
Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal Case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying. Where the Judge’s notes forms the only record of the evidence copies of these notes should be given.

———

Rule 339 of the Tamil Nadu Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958 reads as follows:
“339. Copies to be given to parties.” Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorized fee for copying

New Rule 209 of The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 for Tamil Nadu read as follow:

Case Laws:

Post Views: 853

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023

Posted on July 9, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh punished a perjuror with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- for suppressing material facts.

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023

The Division Bench also dismissed the LPA filed against the above Order.

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 3 Apr 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97229237/

https://www.latestlaws.com/case-analysis/suppression-of-material-facts-amounts-to-manipulation-of-judiciary-won-t-be-tolerated-cost-of-rs-1-lakh-imposed-198120

Index of Perjury cases here.

Post Views: 547

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011

Condone Delay Judgments

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007

K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991

Certified Copies of Docket Orders

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023