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.
This is a good judgment from Madras High Court which held that, a Magistrate can dispense with appearance of accused in a criminal case on first appearance itself, if accused is represented by an Advocate and supported by reasonable excuse.
Beautiful articulation of fact situation on the ground
From Para 15,
15. However, this Court is much concerned if the counsel who is permitted to represent the petitioners/accused is absent on the ground of boycott. In such circumstances, the Court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Persons belonging to the legal profession are concededly the elite of the society. They have always been in the vanguard of progress and development of not only law but the polity as a whole. Citizenry looks at them with hope and expectations for traversing on the new paths and virgin fields to be marched on by the society. The profession by and large, till date has undoubtedly performed its duties and obligations and has never hesitated to shoulder its responsibilities in larger interests of mankind. The lawyers, who have been acknowledged as being sober, task-oriented, professionally-responsible stratum of the population, are further obliged to utilise their skills for socio-political modernisation of the country. The lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of constitutional government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. But now-a-days, unfortunately, strikes, boycott calls and even unruly are becoming a frequent spectacles and boycotting the Courts by Advocates has come a regular feature in this state and almost throughout a year, one section or the other of the members of the Bar abstain from Courts and thereby making this Chartered High Court into shattered position. No Advocate has a right to abstain from Court without first returning the briefs to his clients and refunding the fees received from them. It is well known that several clients are paying through their nose by borrowing heavily to their advocates and it is a matter of life and death for them. Advocates who are boycotting the Courts for one cause of so, should not ignore the fact that there have been several causes before the Courts pending for disposal and their act of boycotting would lead to a travesty of justice and destroy the basic democracy, which would tantamount to failure of administration of justice. Failure of a lawyer to attend to his case in Court would not only be breach of contract and breach of trust, but also professional misconduct.
In such circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to make the following:
i) No advocate has right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or even boycott any particular court. With the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to secure justice is obstructed which is unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act.
ii) It is always open to the litigants to claim damages and also to move the Consumer forum for appropriate compensation and for damages that had caused to them by theirs Advocates by not representing the matters in Courts;
ii) No Advocate shall be permitted to represent the matter without robes (dress-code) on boycott day;
iii) The Courts below shall record the non-apperance of the Advocates due to boycott in the listed case proceedings and proceed with the matters on merits;
iv) After recording such non-apperance of the Advocates, the Courts below shall report the same to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action and it would facilitate the litigants to pursue the matter with the Bar Council of India.
The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to all the subordinate Courts dealing with civil and criminal matters.
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117608503/
High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.
It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.
Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.
Here are the guidelines.
It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/
This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.
This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my site, Shades of Knife.
Delivery of Justice
Administration of Justice:
Personal Interest
Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.
Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc
Dowry Prohibition Act here.
State-enacted Rules are here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.
Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.
In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:
These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.
Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.
Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.
Punishment varies depending on the severity:
Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.
Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.
Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.
Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:
Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.
Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.
Supreme Court has held that when proceeding against parents were quashed on the ground that Magistrate had taken cognizance after three years, husband also gets same benefit.
Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003 whereby the proceedings of CC No.240/2002 were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition No.4152/2006 had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC No.240/2002.
Citations: [2007 AIOL 1286], [2007 SCALE 14 321], [2007 SCC 13 165], [2008 CRLJ SC 1375], [2007 SCR 13 478], [2009 SCC CRI 1 170], [2008 AIR SC 787], [2008 AIC SC 61 102], [2008 CRILJ 1375]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494950/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135cd
Earlier judgment of AP High Court is available here.
A 3-judge bench laid down the law to be followed in respect of electronic evidence as a secondary evidence.
Sec 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.
19. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record
shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.
Special Law Prevails over General Law
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
Key Paragraph
24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Citations: [2015 MHLJ SC 2 135], [2015 RD 129 112], [2014 GUJ LH 3 305], [2014 KERLT 4 104], [2015 SUPREME 3 453], [2015 AIR SC 180], [2014 JT 10 459], [2015 SCC L&S 1 108], [2015 AWC SC 1 156], [2015 SCC CRI 1 24], [2015 ALR 111 811], [2014 SCC 10 473], [2015 JCC SC 1 214], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 732], [2014 AIOL 574], [2014 SLT 8 223], [2015 MPLJ SC 1 507], [2015 SCC CIV 1 27], [2015 KARLJ 1 547], [2014 SCALE 10 660], [2015 ALT CRI 3 161]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af58e4b01497114161f4
Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 608], [2014 JLJR SC 1 75], [2013 AIR SC 6202], [2014 SCC 14 401], [2013 SUPREME 7 765], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 140], [2013 SCALE 13 259], [2013 AIOL 708], [2015 SCC CRI 1 376], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 485], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 957], [2013 AIC 132 33], [2014 CUTLT 117 975], [2013 AIR SC SUPP 423], [2013 ALLCC 83 947], [2014 NCC 1 280], [2014 CCR SC 1 9], [2014 SCJ 3 735], [2014 DMC 1 107], [2013 JT SC 14 543], [2014 OLR 1 323], [2014 CLT 117 975], [2014 UC 1 59], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 535]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47377728/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3de4b0149711415e9f
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 are here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.
