Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, no one, except Passport Authority, can impound a passport; nor police nor Courts. Period.

The Apex Court held that

there is a difference between seizing a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, the seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document, said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts impounding of property/or document.

And also

Maintaining that, the Passport Act, 1967 is a special act and thereby prevails over the Cr.P.C. which is a general law, vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim \023Generalia specialibus non derogant\024. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.

This judgment has lead to lot of other judgments wherein the various High Courts in India had ordered lower courts to return back the passports of accused, that were either confiscated by the police as part of their search operations or crime investigation or had been surrendered to Courts, as a condition to obtaining Anticipatory Bail. They are listed here.

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I on 24 January, 2008

Citations : [2008 AIR SC 1414], [2008 AIR SC 0 898], [2008 SCC 3 674], [2008 LW CRL 1 503], [2008 SCALE 2 46], [2008 JT 2 174], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1189], [2008 ALT CRI 2 344], [2008 DLT 147 397], [2008 CCR 1 318], [2008 SLT 2 245], [2008 AIOL 107], [2008 BOMCR CRI SC 2 514], [2008 SCC CRI 2 121], [2008 AIR SCW 898], [2008 CRLJ SC 1599], [2008 MLJ CRL 1 1195]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/572504/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae74e4b0149711413efc

K. Ramachandran Vs V.N. Rajan & Anr on 7 July, 2009

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, a key legal aspect which was not earlier faced, was deciphered and held. Please read through for yourself.

Categories of case which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision:
“(i) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the appellant- accused;
(ii) Where the Trail Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;
(iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to be inadmissible;
(iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the Trial Court or by the appellate Court; and
(v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law

Of course, these categories were declared by this Court to be illustrative and this Court observed that other cases of similar nature could also be properly held to be exceptional in nature where the High Court could justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.

K. Ramachandran Vs V.N. Rajan & Anr on 7 July, 2009

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

Posted on July 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Defense of Accused:

Before the trial Court the accused persons put the plea that charge under Section 498-A was thoroughly misconceived as both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC pre-suppose valid marriage of the alleged victim-woman with the offender-husband. It was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since it was admitted that the appellant had married during the lifetime of the wife of respondent no.1, what happened to his first marriage remained a mystery. Prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A had no application.

From Para 18,

It would be appropriate to construe the expression ‘husband’ to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of ‘husband’ to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as ‘husband’ is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.

Finally,

Whether the offences are made out is a matter of trial. The High Court was not justified in summarily rejecting the application for grant of leave. It has a duty to indicate reasons when it refuses to grant leave. Any casual or summary disposal would not be proper. (See State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2003 (8) Supreme 611). In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for hearing the matter on merits as according to us points involved require adjudication by the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

The acquittal of the accused happened at sessions court and a revision on this acquittal at High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed. Read it here.

Citations : [2004 AIR SC 1418], [2004 ALD CRI 1 452], [2004 CALLT SC 3 16], [2004 DMC SC 1 201], [2004 JT SC 1 177], [2004 KLJ 1 825], [2004 KLT SC 2 822], [2004 PLJR 2 64], [2004 SCALE 1 264], [2004 SCC 3 199], [2004 CRIMES SC 1 276], [2004 SCC CRI 699], [2004 SCR 1 378], [2004 SUPREME 1 355], [2004 KHC 0 668], [2004 RCR CRI 1 776], [2004 ACC 48 442], [2004 AIR SC 344], [2004 SRJ 2 49], [2004 CCR 1 163], [2004 JCRIC 1 209], [2004 CRJ 2 432], [2004 SLT 1 466], [2004 AIR SCW 344], [2004 CRLJ SC 892]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1180389/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae01e4b0149711412ad7

https://vlex.in/vid/crl-no-000025-000025-852345777

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint

This is a judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court where in the issue that arises is whether a court dealing with the petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) has power to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed.

Original reliefs requested in DV Case

“a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;
c) to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

These are the dole outs the begging knife requested Court to allow in this instant amendment petition

a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondent.
b) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-
c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parents.
d) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violence.
e) Direct the respondent to return the sari samans and other goods like worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- as per the list annexed herewith.
f) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of, litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so far spent by the complainant persuing her litigation.
g) Direct the 1st respondent to provide separate residence by taking rent portion with monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-
h) Directing the respondent to return the original study certificates, medical certificates, deposits certificates and receipts etc. in the prayer portion paragraphs the following amendment by deleting the prayer original para
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance.”

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 531]

Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963

Posted on July 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the following in this landmark judgment

‘principle of res judicata’
difference between words “good cause” for nonappearance in O. IX, r. 7 and “sufficient cause” for the same purpose in O. IX, r. 13
‘res judicata’ could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits.
If the entirety of the “hearing” of a suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under O. XX, r. 1, there is clearly no adjournment of “the hearing” of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit.
ln the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit:
- (1) Where the hearing is adjourned or
- (2) where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that O. XX, r. 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed.

Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963

Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Posted on July 9, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Important Quash Judgment for Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

All 6 (out of total 7 respondents) in this DVC are freed by quashing the DVC proceedings initiated on them as the allegations are replica of those made in IPC 498A Case and moreover the allegations are vague and general in nature.

Observation by Hon’ble Judge:
The allegations made in the said report are verbatim identical with the report lodged with the Project Officer. It appears that a report was prepared and copies of which were sent to police station and Project Officer.

Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160109228/

The index page is here.

Harishankar Rastogi Vs Girdhari Sharma And Anr on 13 March, 1978

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Apex Court held as follows in regards to the right or lack thereof of a party to go as in-person in a case in a court. Legendary Judge Krishnaiyer, V.R. has allowed permission to a friend of a Plaintiff, who is not a advocate, to plead his case in court of law.

“1. A private person who is not an Advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court may even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, and reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission.
2. The Advocates are entitled as of right to practice in this Court under S. 30(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 subject to the reasonable restriction provided under s. 29 of that Act viz. that the only class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law shall be advocates. Even so, it is open to a party, who is unable for some reason or the other to present his case adequately, to seek the help of another person in his behalf. To negative such a plea may be denying justice altogether in certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy and indigence and judicial processes of sophisticated nature…………….
3. A comprehensive programme of free legal services, is in a sense,a serious obligation of the State if the rule of law were to receive vitality in its observance. Until then, parties should appear through advocates, and where they are not represented by one such, through some chosen friend. Such other person cannot practice the profession of habitually representing parties in Court. If a non-advocate pecialises in practicing in Court, professionally he will be violating the text of the interdict in the Advocates Act, which the Court cannot allow him to do so. Nevertheless it is open to a person who is a party to a proceeding to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular instance or case. Practicing a profession means something very different from representing some friend or relation on one occasion or in one case or on a few occasions ,or in a few cases. “

Harishankar Rastogi Vs Girdhari Sharma And Anr on 13 March, 1978

Citation: [1977 ACR SC 363], [1978 AIR SC 1019], [1978 SCC 2 165], [1978 SCC CRI 168], [1978 SCR 3 493], [1978 ALR 4 353], [1978 CAR 174], [1978 CRLR 161], [1978 MLJ CRI 1 640], [1978 UJ SC 301], [1978 CRLJ SC 778]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1704613/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abd1e4b014971140d6a8

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on two aspects

(a) Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client?

(b) Does the client has freedom to choose and engage a advocate and change the advocate?

Thus, even after providing a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the client remaining in his hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was engaged, it is important to notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him. In the conditions prevailing in India with lots of illiterate people among the litigant public it may not be advisable also to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the fees claimed by him. Any such lien if permitted would become susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.

… and more…

A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.
In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shobharam and ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910). The words of his choice in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom he once engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.
If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate.

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3049], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 375], [2000 ALT SC 5 1], [2001 BLJR 1 174], [2000 CTC 3 757], [2001 GLH 3 624], [2000 JT SC 9 432], [2000 KLT SC 3 438], [2001 LW 1 284], [2001 MHLJ SC 1 23], [2000 MPLJ SC 613], [2000 PLJR 4 161], [2000 RD 91 692], [2000 SCALE 6 42], [2000 SCC 7 264], [2000 SUPP SCR 2 598], [2001 UJ 1 27], [2000 UPLBEC 3 2404], [2000 AIR SC 2912], [2000 CTR 163 32]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151656/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411a9d

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma

http://www.briefcased.in/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-22160

Karnataka High Court Judgments:

NOC not required

Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016

NOC required:

Bhagya Vs Jayalakshmi on 13 Feb 2019

Other Judgements on this subject here.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment, had rejected the application of a Deputy Manager of a Company to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Company.

A natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.

Who can be Party in Person?

Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled as an advocate.

… and more…

We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.

From Para 7,

7. There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to appear before it and argue the case. A power-of-attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in court on behalf of anyone, unless, permitted by the court under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements, etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone else, unless prohibited by law.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Citations : [2011 ACR SC 2 2269], [2011 JKJ SC 3 56], [2011 JT SC 7 559], [2011 KLT SC 3 498], [2011 RCR CIVIL 4 252], [2011 SCALE 7 413], [2011 SCC 15 449], [2011 SCR 7 846], [2014 SCC CIV 2 617], [2011 MWN CR 3 290], [2011 AIOL 469], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 257], [2011 KLT 3 498], [2011 JT 7 559]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170747848/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af02e4b0149711415575

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010

Posted on June 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing many landmark Perjury precedents, Justice J.R.Midha of Delhi High Court has rendered this judgment. This CrPC 340 judgment is under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Since there was ample evidence for fraud on court, Police were directed to conduct preliminary inquiry.

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010

A precedent from Supreme Court of India is available here, which is also relied upon in this instant judgment.

Citations: [2011 DRJ 121 328], [2010 CCR 4 442], [2010 DLT 174 214], [2011 RCR CRI 7 2111], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 4006]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83621866/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d95e4b014971117a12d

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008

K. Ramachandran Vs V.N. Rajan & Anr on 7 July, 2009

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963

Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Harishankar Rastogi Vs Girdhari Sharma And Anr on 13 March, 1978

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs The State on 18 November, 2010