Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows when Cross-examination of a Prosecution witness was adjourned/deferred to over 1 year.

It is also to be pointed out that PW4 Vikram Singh (informant) who had lodged FIR immediately was under constant threat and was compelled not to speak the truth despite the fact that he was the brother of deceased. Other witnesses also turned hostile including PW6 Prem Singh son of Pratap Singh and PW8 Rattan Lal, which indicates, as observed by the High Court, that accused party was stronger in terms of money power and muscle power. At this stage, we would observe that the Sessions Judge ought to have followed the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. of completing the trial by examining the witnesses from day to day and not giving a chance to accused to threaten or win over the witnesses so that they may not support the prosecution. It appears from the record that examination-in-chief of PW4 Vikram Singh was over on 06.2.1984. The counsel representing Ambika Prasad requested the court that because of his uncles demise, he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witness and, therefore, recording of further cross-examination might be adjourned. Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined in the month of July, 1985. In our view, this is highly improper. Even if the request for adjournment of the learned counsel for the accused was accepted, the cross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two or three days.

Citations : [2000 ACR SC 1 282], [2000 AIR SC 718], [2000 ALD CRI 1 460], [2000 CRI LJ 810], [2000 JT SC 1 273], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 64], [2000 SCALE 1 219], [2000 SCC 2 646], [2000 SCR 1 342], [2000 SCC CRI 522], [2000 DLT 83 476], [2000 AIR SC 719], [2000 SCC 2 464], [2000 ACC 40 462], [2000 SCO 2 646], [2000 AIR SC 253], [2000 CRIMES SC 2 63], [2000 SUPREME 2 633], [2000 CRLJ 106 810], [2000 CCR 1 130], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 643], [2000 SCJ 2 472], [2000 SLT 1 442], [2000 SRJ 2 235], [2000 JCC SC 1 197], [2000 SCC SC 1 197], [2000 CRIMES 2 63], [2000 CRLJ SC 810], [2000 RECENTCR 1 643], [2000 AIR SCW 253]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151141/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6ee4b014971141165e

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

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

[S. 14 of Family Courts Act] Del HC | In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial

Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 10 May 2022

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is regarding adoption criteria under section 10() of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which reads as follows,

10. Persons who may be adopted.―No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:―
(i) he or she is a Hindu;
(ii) he or she has not already been adopted;
(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption;
(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

From Para 16,

16. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recognized such a custom among the “Kamma” community of Andhra Pradesh of taking in adoption of a person even above the age of 15 years of age and has held the same to be legal and valid.

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

Citations: 2010 JT 12 4412011 AIR SC 5452010 CTC 6 5552010 SCJ 8 5992011 MLJ 1 7422011 ALT 1 312010 CLT 4 4612010 SLT 8 3982011 CUTLT SUPPL 8222010 AIOL 7842010 ALLMR SC 6 9792011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 972010 SCALE 12 1572010 SCC 14 4662010 SUPREME 7 8682012 SCC CIV 1 6442010 ALR 83 8812010 AIC 96 92011 CHN 1 217

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/663319/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedae4b0149711414e5d

AP High Court Order here.

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

Posted on September 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though this PIL petition was dismissed, the Division bench made a valuable comment, that Demanding of Justice from Concerned Authority in Govt is a Must before Seeking a Writ of Mandamus from a High Court.

Here is the snippet from the 2-page dismissal Order.

Besides this in para 7 of the writ petition a categorical statement has been made that the petitioner had not made any representation to the Government, meaning thereby, that the petitioner before making prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus by way of PIL, has not demanded justice before the authority concerned. This is the condition precedent for invoking Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner has not demanded any justice from the authority concerned. In the writ petition only vague submissions were made. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file amendment petition. Subsequently, one interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed for amendment, which was itself defective and the same was dismissed on 24.02.2020. While dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2020, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with relevant documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order, dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner has filed another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2020, in which he made it clear to amend the writ petition by adding para 4(2) to para 4 (2) (k). In support of so called amendment petition, an affidavit has also been filed. Even after going through the amendment petitions, it is clear that no assertion has been made regarding approaching the authority concerned for demanding justice and directly this writ petition was filed. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed with vague statements and also without approaching the authority concerned, we are of the opinion that such writ petition even as PIL may not be entertained.

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

Recently, Allahabad HC also held this same rule here.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Posted on September 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that for offences under 191 and 192 IPC, procedure under 340 CrPC has to be followed and perjury application for such offences cannot be turned into private complaints under 190 CrPC.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 707], [(2020)20 SCC 1]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141105348/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f567c183321bc6ce2ef6f51

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-versus-prasad-vassudev-keni-etc-etc

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

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

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]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

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