MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

Posted on August 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the wonderful judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court. Very good for lawyers and law students alike.

This is what is mentioned by Hon’ble Judge on first page itself. This is just beginning.

The language of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though is as simple as it could have been, yet seems to have fallen pray to the fear of ‘unknown’ in its applied interpretations. That ‘unknown’ is the fear arising out of a demon of the Indian system of administration of criminal justice, called the ‘FIR’. This fear is so pervasive that it starts showing its effect even before the ‘FIR’ comes into being, and continues to haunt a person even after he is acquitted of the charge leveled in ‘FIR’.

Entire Complaint filing and cognizance taking upon such complaint is detailed elaborately further.

MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

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.

Krishna Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020

Posted on July 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Madaan held that, the JJ Act did not prohibit the provision/protection of anticipatory bail available u/s 438 CrPC so it cannot be said that such relief is not available to the petitioner. So he granted anticipatory bail to the accused.

Krishna Kumari (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020 Interim Order

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the one of the shortest decisions from Supreme Court

From Para 2,

2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in the garb of an order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.

Casemine version:

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005 CM Ver

Supreme Court version (Record of {Proceedings):

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Citations: [2009 SCC 16 429], [2010 SCC CRI 3 315]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117eb32713e179478af2d0#

Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that the burden of proof even in a 304B Dowry death case initially lies on prosecution only and shifts to accused, only after prosecution establishes their case.

Under Section 4 of the Evidence Act whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume the fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. So the court has no option but to presume that the accused had caused dowry death unless the accused disproves it. It is a statutory compulsion on the court. However it is open to the accused to adduce such evidence for disproving the said compulsory presumption, as the
burden is unmistakably on him to do so. He can discharge such burden either by eliciting answers through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or by adducing evidence on the defence side or by both.

And then,

But the peculiar situation in respect of an offence under Section 304B IPC, as discernible from the distinction pointed out above in respect of the offence under Section 306 IPC is this: Under the former the court has a statutory compulsion, merely on the establishment of two factual positions enumerated above, to presume that the accused has committed dowry death. If any accused wants to escape from the said catch the burden is on him to disprove it. If he fails to rebut the presumption the court is bound to act on it.
Now take the case of an accused who was called upon to defend only a charge under Section 302 IPC. The burden of proof never shifts on to him. It ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a case the accused can wait till the prosecution evidence is over and then to show that the prosecution has failed to make out the said offence against him. No compulsory presumption would go to the assistance of the prosecution in such a situation. If that be so, when an accused has no notice of the offence under Section 304B IPC, as he was defending a charge under Section 302 IPC alone, would it not lead to a grave miscarriage of justice when he is alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to the serious punishment prescribed thereunder, which mandates a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven years.
The serious consequence which may ensue to the accused in such a situation can be limned through an illustration:-
If a bride was murdered within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence to show that either on the previous day or a couple of days earlier she was subjected to harassment by her husband with demand for dowry, such husband would be guilty of the offence on the language of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder of his wife was actually committed either by a decoit or by a militant in a terrorist act the husband can lead evidence to show that he had no hand in her death at all. If he succeeds in discharging the burden of proof he is not liable to be convicted under Section 304B, IPC. But if the husband is charged only under Section 302 IPC he has no burden to prove that his wife was murdered like that as he can have his traditional defence that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and claim an order of acquittal. The above illustration would amplify the gravity of the consequence befalling an accused if he was only asked to defend a charge under Section 302 IPC and was alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC without any notice to him, because he is deprived of the opportunity to disprove the burden cast on him by law.

In such a situation, if the trial court finds that the prosecution has failed to make out the case under Section 302 IPC, but the offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out, the court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence. Without affording such an opportunity to the accused, a conviction under Section 304-B IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice. Even if no such count was included in the charge, when the court affords him an opportunity to discharge his burden by putting him to notice regarding the prima facie view of the court that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304B IPC, unless he succeeds in disproving the presumption, it is possible for the court to enter upon a conviction of the said offence in the event of his failure to disprove the presumption.

Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001

Citations: [

Other Source links:

All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is overruled by Rajinder Singh here.

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1567], [2013 ALT CRI 2 457], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 225], [2013 OLR 2 130], [2013 JT 4 188], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 AIOL 160], [2013 GLR 3 2510], [2013 CRILJ 2095], [2013 AKR 2 339], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 342], [2013 CLT 116 563], [2013 ALD CRI 1 967], [2013 SCALE 3 525], [2013 SUPREME 2 485], [2013 AIC 125 194], [2013 CUTLT 116 563], [2013 PLJR 3 91], [2013 SCC 3 684], [2013 JCC 2 1330], [2013 DMC 1 700], [2013 SLT 2 767], [2013 BLJ 3 531], [2013 SCC CRI 2 15], [2013 SCR 3 449], [2013 ALLCC 82 61], [2013 AD SC 4 275], [2013 CRIMES SC 3 229], [2013 GUJLR 3 2510], [2013 CRLJ SC 2095]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c1b

All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court in this case, held that the demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out.

From Para 16,

This Court held that demand made for purchasing a computer, six months after the marriage, was not a demand in connection with marriage and was not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case. Explanation to Section 304B of the IPC states that for the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so far as it is material to this case, states that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage at or before or at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said party. Thus, the emphasis is on property or valuable security given ‘at or before’ or ‘at any time after’ the marriage in connection with marriage. The amount or things demanded must, therefore, have a nexus with the marriage. In this case both the brothers i.e. PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers of the deceased, have clearly stated that the accused were unhappy by the quality and quantity of the dowry and the deceased was being taunted and beaten-up for that. The words ‘insufficient and inferior quality of dowry’ are important. They indicate that the transaction of giving dowry was not complete. Sufficient quantity of dowry was not given and that transaction was sought to be completed by asking for Rs.60,000/- after the marriage for the business of the appellant. This demand has a connection with the marriage. Therefore, in our opinion Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case.

Doling out gyan in Para 25,

25. Before closing, the most commonplace argument must be dealt with. In all cases of bride burning it is submitted that independent witnesses have not been examined. When harassment and cruelty is meted out to a woman within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is difficult to get independent witnesses to depose about it. Only the inmates of the house and the relatives of the husband, who cause the cruelty, witness it. Their servants, being under their obligation, would never depose against them. Proverbially, neighbours are slippery witnesses. Moreover, witnesses have a tendency to stay away from courts. This is more so with neighbours. In bride burning cases who else will, therefore, depose about the misery of the deceased bride except her parents or her relatives? It is time we accept this reality. We, therefore, reject this submission.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013

Citations: [2014 SUPREME 2 553], [2013 JT SC 15 9], [2014 ECRN 1 875], [2014 AIR SC 817], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 1009], [2014 SLT 3 24], [2013 AIOL 748], [2014 SCJ 1 701], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 355], [2014 CUTLT SUPPL 438], [2014 SCC CRI 4 769], [2014 SCC 4 129], [2013 SCC 10 691], [2014 CRI LJ 561], [2014 DMC SC 1 722], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 687], [2013 SCALE 13 691], [2014 CCR SC 1 671], [2014 ALT CRI 2 261], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL 1 535], [2014 AIC 133 174], [2014 AIR BOM R CRI 1 208], [2014 ALLCC 84 371], [2014 ALD CRI 1 687], [2013 AIR SC 6741]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10522469/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415bdb

All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer and Ors on 18 September 2014

Posted on July 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 11 October 2000

Posted on June 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 11 October 2000

Citations: [2000 AIR SC 3214], [2000 CRIMES SC 4 79], [2000 CRLJ SC 4604], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 81], [2000 AIR SC 3692], [2000 SCALE 6 697], [2000 JT SUPP 1 422], [2000 SUPREME 6 586], [2000 SCC 8 740], [2001 SCC CRI 87], [2000 ACR SC 3 2553], [2001 CGLJ 1 53], [2001 PLJR 1 112], [2001 UC 1 79], [2001 LW CRL 1 1], [2000 CRILJ 4604], [2001 ALT CRI 1 40], [2000 JT SUPPL SC 1 422], [2000 ALD CRI 2 843], [2000 SUPP SCR 3 658]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445635/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad81e4b014971141183f

S.R Bommai and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 11 March 1994

Posted on June 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

S.R Bommai and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 11 March 1994

Citations: [1994 SCALE 2 37], [1994 JT 2 215], [1994 SCALE 2 1], [1994 SCR 2 644], [1994 AIR SC 1918], [1994 SCC 3 1]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac9ee4b014971140f544

Earlier case at Karnataka High Court is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes

MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018

Krishna Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013

Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer and Ors on 18 September 2014

Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 11 October 2000

S.R Bommai and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 11 March 1994