For various reasons, delay gets injected into Court proceedings especially when challenging a lower Court order/judgment before an appellate Court.
Supreme Court:
Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022
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.
Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007
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.
The Index is here.
K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006
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.
The Index is here.
Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000
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
CM Version
The Index is here.
Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991
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.
The Index is here.
Certified Copies of Docket Orders
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:
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.
Case Laws:
- Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 15 Nov 1991
- Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000
- K. Nagarajan Vs K.S. Ramasamy and Anr on 17 Jul 2003
- K.Ramaiah Vs R.Sudhakara Naidu on 04 Jul 2006
- Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 20 Nov 2007
- Rev. Samuel D. Stephens and Ors Vs Pastor A. Samuel Ramasamy on 27 Feb 2009
Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023
The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh punished a perjuror with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- for suppressing material facts.
The Division Bench also dismissed the LPA filed against the above Order.
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.
Jeetan Lodh Alias Jitendra Vs State of UP Lucknow and 3 Ors on 11 Apr 2023
A single bench Judge of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow held that, compensation obtained as victims has to be recovered if the said alleged victims turn hostile before Courts.
From Para 11,
11. Now, the question has cropped up before me as to whether, the prosetrix who has become hostile is entitled to retain the amount of compensation. In my opinion, if the victim has become hostile and does not support the prosecution case at all, it is appropriate to recover the amount if paid to the victim. The victim is the person who comes before the Court and during trial if she denies the allegation of rape and becomes hostile, there is no justification to keep the amount of compensation provided by the State Government. The State Exchequer cannot be burdened like this and there is all possibility of misuse of the laws. Therefore, in my opinion, the amount of compensation given to the victim or the family member, is liable to be recovered by the authorities concerned who have paid the compensation.
12. Therefore, considering the above aspect of the matter, it is directed that the State Government will pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the authorities concerned to recover the amount of compensation if paid, in the cases, where the victim has become hostile during trial and not supported the prosecution. Let necessary exercise be done within a period of three months.
13. The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary compliance.
14. List this case in the second week of August and learned AGA will submit progress report.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019
It was held that there were no justifiable reasons for living separately.
From Para 13,
13) According to Respondents, the 1st Petitioner voluntarily left the company of the Respondent in the year 2014 and went to her parents house and refused to join him despite several attempts by Respondent. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that 1st Petitioner was necked out from matrimonial home on 27/05/2015 after she was severely beaten by the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the Criminal Case was filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are presently residing at the house of parents of 1st Petitioner. The reason for disputes between P.W.1 and the Respondent are not entirely proved. Except for admission of pending Criminal case filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent under Section 498AIPC and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof produced on behalf of the Petitioners to prove that the Respondent was responsible for beating her and for demanding additional dowry. The initial burden in a Maintenance Case is on the Petitioner and only after proving the facts stated by her, the burden shifts onto the Respondent. In the instant case, as discussed above, none of the allegations levelled by the 1st Petitioner against the Respondent have been proved. Since the fact that the 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner are living separately from the Respondent is undisputed and justifiable reasons for living separately are not established by 1st Petitioner, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the 1st Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.
