State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Posted on August 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court laid down the following practice guidelines to be followed by all Trial Courts, while conducting a criminal trial.

From Para 12,

12. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible:
i. a detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges;
ii. the case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted;
iii. the case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible;
iv. testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled;
v. the request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case-calendar;
vi. the grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses;
vii. while granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for;
viii. the case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary;
ix. in cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Citations: [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2251], [2019 SCC 13 297], [2019 SCC CRI 4 552], [2019 AIR SC 721], [2018 KLT 4 783], [2018 CRIMES 4 288], [2018 AIC 192 212], [2019 CRI LJ 1516], [2019 KLJ 2 398], [2019 ECRN 1 46], [2018 INSC 1021]

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187514485/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bdfde204a93267eadff9b10

Supreme Court initiate a Suomoto WP here to assess the effectiveness of the Guidelines issue above.

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Posted on May 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has given a detailed analysis and conclusions (and limitations it has to implement the conclusions itself) on a 148-year old tradition in Jammu and Kashmir called as Darbar Move. More details here.

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar on 6 August 2001

Posted on February 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment from Supreme Court, which held that Repeated adjournment of matters ‘for orders‘ after arguments are heard is impermissible. Also passed the following Guidelines.

20. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate of this Court. Such guidelines, as for present, are as under:
(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justice of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/ Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that months.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months, from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as deems fit in the circumstances.
21. We hope and trust that the above guidelines shall be strictly followed and implemented, considering them as self-imposed restraints.

Indiankanoon version:

Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar on 6 August 2001

Casemine version:

Anil Rai v. State of Bihar on 6 August 2001

Citations: [2002 BOMCR SC 3 360], [2009 ELT SC 233 13], [2001 AIR SC 3173], [2001 SCC 7 318], [2001 SCC CRI 1009], [2001 ALD CRI 2 446], [2001 ACR SC 3 2046], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 3 722], [2001 JT SC 6 515], [2001 SCALE 5 41], [2001 BLJR 3 1777], [2001 SUPP SCR 1 298]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1517737/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad95e4b0149711411c30

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Posted on December 6, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 Sep 2016

Posted on October 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 September, 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.

WRIT-PETITIONCRIMINAL-NO-68-OF-2016-1

High Court at Gauhati Notification-06-02-2015

Posted on September 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this notification, Gauhati High Court notified that going forward A4 size white papers to be used in all judicial as well as official works in the High Court and Subordinate Courts under its jurisdiction from 1-March-2015 onwards.

Few guidelines are also issue:

Maximum 26/27 lines be typed out in each sheet in 1.5 space in between the lines,
Words in size 11 of Tahoma font,
Margins 4 cm at top, 1cm below, 5 cm left and 2 cm right.

High Court at Gauhati Notification-06-02-2015

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Posted on September 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the High Court cannot direct the police not to arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation just because they pleaded to be innocents, especially when it held that it is not inclined to interfere on the ground that it was not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case.

Interesting:
It is a well-settled proposition of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Ramgopal & Anr Vs State Of M.P.& Anr on 30 July, 2010

Posted on September 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court in this order, has held that,

There are several offences under the IPC that are currently non-compoundable. These include offences punishable under Section 498-A, Section 326, etc. of the IPC. Some of such offence can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute. We are of the opinion that the Law Commission of India could examine whether a suitable proposal can be sent to theUnion Government in this regard. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which the aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement, but may also encourage the process of re-conciliation between them. We, accordingly, request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all these aspects and take such steps as may be considered feasible.
The Secretary General of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the Law Commission of India as well as to the Law Secretary to the Government of India. The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Minister of Law & Justice, Union of India.

Ramgopal & Anr Vs State Of M.P.& Anr on 30 July, 2010

Recommended Guidelines to follow when fighting False (Matrimonial) Cases in India

Posted on August 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A dear friend and fellow false-case fighter had gladly permitted me to post the following here.

Contact my friend on [email protected], for any questions or regarding the intentionally hidden 10^th point.

===============================================================================

Dear Fighters,

Here I am providing some of the Recommended Guidelines to follow when fighting of our Cases. I have prepared these guidelines purely based upon my Experience. Not necessary to be applicable to everyone in our Group. But Its worth Reading Once.

1.Please make sure every court Date is a Productive and Progressive in the global view of all the Cases.

2.Please keep an eye on the Corruption happening regarding any of your cases in the Court and take necessary action immediately. For instance, sometimes your wife will not attend the Court Date but her presence will be marked as Attended which is illegal. So, in this case, you can always Question the court with a Memo.

3.Request the Court for Costing for any Delay Tactics played by the Opponent.

4.Please try to attend all the Court Dates by you or any Nominated person by you. This will help you to monitor all of your cases and build the Rapport with the Court Staff.

5.Apply for Certified copies on the same day for an important Milestone of all Cases. This will avoid any fraud chances (like replacing the Official Papers in the court before we get the Official Certified Copies) playing by the opponent.

6.Please request your Lawyer to let you know before he does anything in the court regarding your cases. Make sure he does the same in front of the Judge as he promised you.

7.If there is any action taken to be from our end in the court, don’t delay. Please file the necessary replies immediately without any Delay.

8.We can understand that most of the Matrimonial Disputes ends in Settlement out of the Court. Please request your Lawyer to not to push you for any out of Court Settlement. This will avoid the Lawyer to Collude with the Opponent and you can sense that in the Initial Stages of the Case if there is anything like that.

9.Avoid Contacting your Opponent in the court by any means. This will shut down the chances of filing the further cases against you by the opponent.

10.

11.Read more judgements given by your Particular judge in his previous Judgements from his previous Courts and prepare the Drafting according to that.

12.As most of the Matrimonial Disputes contains only 15% Legal and the remaining 85% is of the Conspiracy plotted by your Knife, the System and her Lawyers. Make sure you Crack that Conspiracy First by following the Path of Dharma.

13.As we are fighting with Strong Evil forces, we will need Divine help in terms a Mentor or Guru who can save in our Crisis Time. So, Identify a Senior Most Lawyer in your Local Area and make him as a Good friend who can advise in each and every step of your cases. So, our aim is to get the advice from the top most Lawyer and execute the plans with a Lawyer who is Actually fighting your case. Don’t let all of your plans to the actual Lawyer in Advance. As per Chanakya, Secrecy is the Stepping Stone for our Success as part of our Strategy.

14.Sometimes, the Opponent will play the tactics that they would like to Compromise and Cry in front of you when they think that they are Losing the Game. So, please don’t feel proud for this and lose the game by yourself. Please remember that a Ghost will catch your head when it is Winning and the same will catch your leg when it is losing by shedding the Crocodile Tears in front of you. So, don’t trust the opponent unless until they come with the Proper Documentation to Sign the MOU.

15.The Most Important thing is to look after your Mental Health in this long running Trauma of life. So, do Yoga or Mediation or Move Ahead with a Girl Friend or any other areas of your life where you can find your happiness.

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017

Posted on July 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In just judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that

in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons.
The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC.
iv) E-mail address/phone number,

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC 4 150], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 236], [2017 AIR SC 1345], [2017 CTC 2 457], [2017 CDR SC 2 202], [2017 AJR 2 462], [2017 ALR 122 905], [2017 ALT 5 4], [2017 ALD 3 151], [2017 BOMCR 3 62], [2017 CLT 123 1054], [2017 DMCSC 2 173], [2017 GLT 2 29], [2017 JKJ SC 2 35], [2017 KHC 2 380], [2017 KLJ 2 549], [2017 KLT 2 593], [2017 LW 3 721], [2017 MPLJ 3 344], [2017 MHLJ 4 764], [2017 OLR 1 1033], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 358], [2017 SCALE 3 471], [2017 SCJ 6 392], [2017 WBLR SC 3 622], [2017 WLN SC 2 26], [2017 SCC CIV 2 394]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43287493/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ca392a2713e10674449271

This judgment is overruled in Santhini Vs Vijaya Venketesh here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar on 6 August 2001

People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 23 September, 2014

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 Sep 2016

High Court at Gauhati Notification-06-02-2015

The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

Ramgopal & Anr Vs State Of M.P.& Anr on 30 July, 2010

Recommended Guidelines to follow when fighting False (Matrimonial) Cases in India

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017