Skip to main content

Accepting incomplete charge sheet and denying statutory bail is abuse of law

Delhi High Court has held in State v Hargyan that acceptance of an incomplete charge sheet and denying statutory bail (167(2) CrPC] to the accused amounted to apparent abuse of process of Law. The accused was alleged of committing misappropriation of funds in ATM accounts, wherein he was acting as custodian. The police filed final report before the magistrate court. The court below, returning the charge sheet, directed further investigation into certain aspects .The accused applied for statutory bail before the magistrate court which was rejected.His revision before the sessions judge was allowed, granting statutory bail. Aggrieved by the same,state filed the above criminal revision petition. Dismissing the petition, Justice P.S .Teji, observed:-“Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. precludes the concerned Magistrate to have the custody of the detenue beyond 60 days until he receives the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C. to adjudicate upon the same.” The court noted that in the instant case, the accused was arrested on 29/10/2004 and the charge sheet which was filed on 26/12/2004, was returned for further investigation. Hence under the said circumstances , the court held that accepting an incomplete report on 26/12/2004, which was returned for further investigation, and further denying statutory bail to the accused amounted to abuse of process of law. The court opined:- “In the present case, accepting an incomplete report on 26.12.2014 and returning the same on account of incomplete investigation on certain aspects, and making the accused disentitled for benefit under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is an apparent abuse of law.” The Court further held:-“This court is of the considered opinion that charge sheet filed within statutory period of 60 days ought to be complete to enable the concerned Magistrate to adjudicate and not an incomplete charge sheet to infringe upon the right of the accused to be released on bail.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/accepting-incomplete-charge-sheet-denying-statutory-bail-magistrate-apparent-abuse-law-delhi-hc/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
24 comments
Read more

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...
Post a Comment
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
1 comment
Read more