A District-Judge aspirant lost that opportunity due to a false 498A IPC case from which he got acquitted, after the selection for the post completed.
Earlier High Court Judgment dismissing the Writ petition
~~~
Other Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103138593/
After giving some inputs to Law commission and Bar Council of India in this para,
16. The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India.
Supreme Court passed these reasons for not recalling a witness
29. We may now sum up our reasons for disapproving the view of the High Court in the present case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross-examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel;
(iiii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted.
Citations : [2016 ACR SC 1 142], [2016 ALT CRL AP 1 167], [2016 MPJR 1 1], [2016 NCC 1 393], [2016 SCC 2 402], [2016 SCJ 1 93], [2015 AIR SC 3501], [2015 AD SC 10 165], [2015 ALLCC 91 640], [2015 BOMCR CRI 4 366], [2015 CCR SC 3 468], [2015 CRILJ 4640], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 1], [2015 JLJR 4 97], [2015 PLJR 4 258], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 4 312], [2015 RLW SC 4 3271], [2015 SCALE 9 649], [2015 UC 3 1794], [2016 SCC CRI 1 510], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 799], [2015 AIC 155 68], [2015 CRI LJ 4640]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33982557/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b391e561097e45a4e3ea
Justice Dipak Misra decried the practice of Trial/Session Court judges in giving adjournments on mere asking by the parties, in spite of the presence of the witnesses willing to be examined fully.
From Para 41,
41. Before parting with the case we are constrained to reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have expressed our agony and anguish the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The Court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons. In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safe-guarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.
Citations: [2015 SCC 3 220], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 53]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188951670/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180e72713e179479dda10
This was followed in this decision here.
In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.
From Para 37,
37. While consistency in law is of utmost importance and law must get its full play regardless of the fact situation, this court must record the unease it feels with regard to a certain aspect that has arisen in this matter. Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people’s personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large. For instance, if a spouse has the carte blanche to install a recording device in a bedroom or other private space or to adopt any means whatsoever to collect evidence against the partner, even if in circumstances of matrimonial discord, it would be difficult to foresee the length to which a spouse may go in doing so ; and such possibility would itself spell the end of the marital relationship. It is not uncommon for spouses to continue living together, even in matrimonial strife, for years on-end. So, while law must trump sentiment, a salutary rule of evidence or a beneficent statutory provision, must not be taken as a license for illegal collection of evidence.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170404652/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5efb8cc29fca196e33048e01
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deepti-kapur-versus-kunal-julka
Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
Single Bench of Patna High Court held as follows, regarding interrogatories and their usage.
From Para 13,
13. Now coming to floor, it is apparent that object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case and for destroying the case of the adversary and as such, it not only shorten the trial proceeding, save time of the court, it also deliverance the party from expenses, consumption of time as well as burden to collect and produce evidences. Side by side, it should always be guarded in a way to prevent misuse. Furthermore, as is apparent, it should be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. However, under Order-XI Rule 6, 7 the grounds have been enumerated whereupon interrogatories could be refused.
Basically, it has been settled at rest by different judicial pronouncement as:-
(i) A party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary‟s case or title.
(ii) A party is not entitled to interrogate as to any confidential communications between his opponent and his legal adviser.
(iii) A party is not entitled to execute interrogatories which would involve disclosures injurious to public interest
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32984899/
Another landmark judgment which emphasizes that Right to Speedy Trial is integral to Article 21 of Constitution.
Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 719], [2001 AIR SC 1246], [2001 ALD CRI 1 559], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 582], [2001 JT SC 2 558], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 838], [2001 RLW SC 2 297], [2001 SCALE 2 8], [2001 SCC 4 525], [2001 SCR 1 990], [2001 UC 1 652], [2001 AIR SC 0 795], [2001 BCR 5 323], [2001 AIR SC 1248], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 323], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 248], [2001 CRLJ SC 1242], [2001 SUPREME 1 661], [2001 SLT 2 68], [2001 SRJ 3 341], [2001 CCR 1 197], [2001 JCC 1 185], [2001 AD SC 2 202], [2001 BLR 2 978], [2001 SCC CR 787], [2001 UJ SC 1 593], [2001 RECENTCR 1 838], [2001 AIR SCW 0 795], [2001 MLJ CRL 1 476]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220491/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad90e4b0149711411b60
Kantamneni Ravi Shankar, MD of TeluguOne media organization was booked in a baseless crime by AP CID and then Single-judge bench sufficiently gave lecture to the Police on Duties of Police.
4 months earlier, Anticipatory Bail was also granted to this Petitioner:
The genesis of this and such nonsensical false criminal cases is this GO:
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
High Court ordered the Government to implement G.O.No.411 in letter and spirit and the action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law. Per G.O.No.426, 6 bottles of Beer was reduced to 3 bottles.
G.O.Ms.No.411 dt: 2019-09-24
G.O.Ms.No.426 dt: 2019-10-11
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b
Here are all kinds of Bail matters, granted/denied, Regular/Anticipatory etc
Index to MASTER sitemap here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 475 access attempts in the last 7 days.
