What can I say about this case and the advocate involved? Read for yourself.
Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013
Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.
Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc
The index page is here.
Mukesh & Anr Vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
These are the appeals filed by the accused in Nirbhaya (Jyoti Singh) gang rape case dismissed by Apex Court.
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others on 13 September, 2013
Landmark judgment of Apex Court giving guidelines or principles to adhere to while condoning delay in appeals.
Kodungallur Film Society vs Union Of India on 1 October, 2018
Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions to the States/Union of India to strictly implement the decision rendered by this Court in here, concerning the large-scale destruction of properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals etc. and levy fine and grant compensation to the victims of such mob-violence.
Indiankanoon.org version is available below.
Destruction of Public and Private Properties Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 16 April 2009
Dr Arijit Pasayat has delivered this wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Swapnil Tripathi Vs Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2018
This is the landmark judgment from Apex Court, for live streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court in a phased manner and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 will have to be suitably amended to provide for the regulatory framework.
Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 Sep 2016
This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein directions were issued to Home Secretaries and DGPs of all States.
The complete directions are given below
(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word ‘sensitive’ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
(j) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.
(k) The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15th November, 2016.
Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 914], [2017 ELT SC 345 434], [2016 SCC 9 473], [2016 SCC CRI 3 691], [2016 AIR SC 4136], [2016 CTC 5 571], [2016 KLT 3 1035]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151036912/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117e6a2713e17947889bcf
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/09/08/firs-to-be-uploaded-on-the-police-website-or-official-website-of-the-government-concerned-from-15th-november-2016/
Here is the Petition copy.
Mary Angel & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 May, 1999
In this landmark judgment related to awarding of costs by High Courts and below courts under CrPC 482, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
Section 148(3) provides that when any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding under Section 145, Section 146 or Section 147, the Magistrate passing a decision may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by such party or by any other party to the proceeding, and whether in whole or in part or proportion and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of witnesses and of pleaders’ fees, which the Court may consider reasonable.
Section 342 provides that any Court dealing with an application made to it for filing a complaint under Section 340 or an appeal under Section 341, shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.
Section 357 provides for payment of compensation to the victim for any loss or injury caused by the offence or in case of death to the heirs of the victims out of the fine imposed and while awarding compensation court has to take into consideration, inter alia, the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution.
Section 358 provides for payment of compensation where any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, without sufficient ground for causing such arrest, then compensation can be awarded by the Magistrate not exceeding Rs. 100/-.
Further, Section 359 empowers the Court to order payment of cost to the complainant in non cognizable case, if it convicts the accused and in such case, the Court can pass an order for payment of costs incurred by the complainant in the prosecution of the case and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process fees, witnesses and pleaders fees which the Court considers reasonable.
And then,
In appropriate cases, where it is necessary to pass such order, Court may award costs for the purposes, namely,
(i) to give effect to any order passed under the Court
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and
(iii) to secure the ends of justice as there is no
(i) negative provision for exercise of such power and (ii) inconsistency with the other provisions.Further, awarding of costs, as stated above, can be for two purposes, one for meeting the litigation expenses and, secondly, for preventing the abuse of the process of Court or to do justice in a matter and in such circumstances, costs can be exemplary.
Final order
In the result, we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Court has power to pass such orders (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
(iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
As stated above, this extraordinary power is to be used in extrao rdinary circumstances and in a judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or purposes can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid In view of the aforesaid findings, this appeal is dismissed.
S. Nambi Narayanan Vs Siby Mathews & Others 4 September, 2018
In this judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has directed the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant as he has suffered custody for forty five days in addition to the civil remedy Dr. S. Nambi Narayanan is already pursue for higher compensation.
