Legal Reference Library

In Ahok Kr. Todi Vs. C.B.I., the Calcutta High Court dealt with framing of charges and held that - Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 216 (5) – Sanction – At the time of dealing with the Section 216(5) of Cr.P.C. the court is to see if any sanction has been given on same facts or not, irrespective of any offence. Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 226 & 227 – When the court shall frame charges – What are the factors to be considered by the court at the time of disposal of an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held, Court should be very cautious in allowing an application Section 227 Cr.P.C. because without affording any opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation through witness, the accused gets an escape from the net of law. The Court is to see if any material for presumption is there or not. If the answer is affirmative, charge has to be framed. Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 190 (1) (b) r/w. 197 – Cognizance – Supplementary Charge-sheet – What should be the basis – If ...

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them. A bench comprising Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Anil Kumar Chawla noted that a person against whom a prosecution is being initiated cannot be denied a copy of the material relied upon to prosecute her/ him. “9. …The basic principle o...

The Supreme Court, in Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State of Assam, has reiterated that “last seen together” along with “absence of satisfactory explanation” cannot be made the sole basis of conviction, when the other circumstances could not be proved. The high court, in the instant case, had convicted the accused holding that the onus was on the accused to explain and exculpate themselves when the ‘last seen theory’ was established and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the presumption would suggest the guilt of the accused. The accused were charged with offences of murder and rape. The Trial Court had returned an order of acquittal which was later challenged before the High Court. Referring to various decisions on the aspect of ‘last seen together’, the bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Navin Sinha observed that where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen toge...

High Court of Allahabad Boney Kapoor and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/1018/2017 08.05.2017 Criminal Affidavit could only be considered as piece of evidence, when statute permits so Applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) have been filed with prayer to quash proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 51 read with Section 63 of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 403 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and summoning order as well as bailable warrant issued and non-bailable warrant passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Complaint was filed on basis of infringement of copy right. As was evident in instant matter, script "Raja Bhai IPS" is said to be prepared by opposite party No. 2, (complainant) and same is said to have been sent to Applicants for filmisation. Case of complainant is that, Applicants did not make film, when op...

In STATE OF U.P vs  SUNIL, settling a doubt which has troubled crime investigators for long, the Supreme Court has ruled that asking an accused to give finger or foot prints for investigation purposes did not violate his fundamental right to protect himself from becoming a witness against himself. The question before a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman was "whether compelling an accused to provide his fingerprints or footprints etc would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, that is compelling an accused of an offence to be a 'witness' against himself"? This question arose in a case involving the murder of four persons of a family in Etawah in September 2000. The main accused died during the trial but his alleged associate, who had refused to give finger and foot prints to the investigating officer despite a direction from the trial court, was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. The HC ac...

Supreme Court Baliraj Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0500/2017 25.04.2017 Criminal Value of medical evidence is only corroborative; it proves that, injuries could have been caused in manner alleged Present appeal arises out of impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, upholding conviction and sentence passed by trial Court against Appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court found the statements of eyewitnesses to be cogent and trustworthy, therefore concurred with judgment of Trial Court and dismissed appeal of Appellant-Accused. Case on behalf of Appellant is that, most of prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, particularly eyewitnesses belong to one family and they had a longstanding grudge against Accused over property dispute between both families, and hence, Appellant was falsely implicated in retaliation. Admittedly, there was no peace and harmony between v...

The issue that this article discusses is whether the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against an accused needs to be followed by his/her imminent arrest. Nowadays, when an allegation of committing a cognizable offence comes up against a person - particularly a celebrity - there will be a public outcry for his/her arrest even though such an arrest is unwarranted in accordance with criminal jurisprudence or its practice. Unnecessary arrests and unjustified pre-trial detention pose grave threat to many citizens accused of committing cognizable criminal offences. The five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in Lalithkumari case categorically stated that the arrest of a person is not directly linked to the registration of FIR. The verdict states both are entirely different concepts operating under different parameters and if a police officer misuses his power of arrest, he can be tried and punished under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefor...

In State Of Maharastra vs Ramesh More & Ors, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against a trial court order acquitting the accused in an abetment of suicide case. Justice PN Deshmukh upheld the order by the Additional Sessions Judge of the trial court in a judgement dated May 11, 2017.

When the seriousness of the offence is such, the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the Courts, the Supreme Court  in The State Of Bihar vs Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai has said, while holding that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground that accused was in custody for a long time. A bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Prafulla C Pant set aside a Patna High Court order, which had granted bail to Bihar toppers’ scam accused Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai. In a brief order, the high court, while granting bail, relied on the fact that the accused has already been in custody for a long time.

The Supreme Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kallo Bai, has clarified that confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings, and it is meant to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle. A bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Prafulla C Pant was considering an appeal by the state against the high court order which had upheld a session’s court order directing the vehicle to be released on the ground that unless the guilt of the accused is proved, the authority had no right to confiscate the vehicle and forest produce. The authorsed officer-cum-sub divisional officer had held that the vehicle operator and his companion had deliberately transported teak wood without the requisite permit or any valid document and that the owner was aware of the said illegal transport. The bench, referring to various other decisions and also on provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969, observed that ...

In Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court of India stated that the principle of proportion between the crime and the punishment is the principle of “just deserts” that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. In other words, the “doctrine of proportionality” has a valuable application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the court will not only have to examine what is just but also as to what the accused deserves keeping in view the impact on the society at large. Every punishment imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused alone, but also on the society as a whole. Thus, the courts should consider retributive and deterrent aspect of punishment while imposing the extreme punishment of death.

In Ashokbhai Kanubhai Ravani Vs. State, Gujarat High Court has held that to bring home a charge under Section 272, IPC the prosecution is to prove: (a) that the accused adulterated a food or drink; (b) that such adulteration rendered the food or drink noxious; (c) that during the adulteration the accused intended to sell the said article of food or drink or knew that it was likely to be sold as pure food or drink.

The Bombay High Court in Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan vs  The Superintendent, Central Jail has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mulund blast convict Saquib Nachan. A bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai was hearing Nachan’s petition wherein he sought the period of detention undergone by him in the MCOC case to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment in POTA case. In the case of Atul Manubhai Parekh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, the apex court had held that under Section 428 of CrPC, the question of merger of sentence does not arise and the period of set-off is in respect of each separate case and the detention undergone by accused during investigation or trial of such case. The court then referred to the case of Sanjay Shriram Gondchar vs State of Maharashtra, wherein another division bench of the high court held that petitioner is not entitled to get period of undertrial imprisonment suffered in one case for set off against the sentence to...

The Supreme Court in SEENI NAINAR MOHAMMED Vs STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE has set aside conviction of accused of murdering a Hindu Munnani Activist in Madurai. The Bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman held that the sanction order was illegal and hence the criminal proceedings for prosecution under the TADA Act are vitiated entirely and that TADA court grossly erred in taking cognizance of the case. The Bench observed that the Court convicted the accused under the TADA Act on the basis of confession of A-6 and not on the basis of any other material. “Confessions of A-1 and A-6 are involuntary as they were taken in the immediate custody of high security of CBI and a non-voluntary confession cannot form the basis of conviction”, the Bench said.

The Supreme Court, in a brief order, has observed that an FIR can be quashed in part against some accused against whom no cognizable offence is made out. The apex court bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman, in Lovely Salhotra vs State, set aside a Delhi High Court order and observed that the court could not refuse to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. The petitioners before the high court had sought to quash the complaint on the ground that on a reading of the FIR, no offence was made out against the petitioners. Refusing to quash the case, the Delhi High Court had observed: “It cannot be said that on a reading of the FIR, prima facie, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage of investigation and that too in part, since there are other accused including accused no.1 Madhvi Khurana against whom the case is under investigati...

The Supreme Court, in Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan, has observed that the degree of satisfaction to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons not arraigned as accused is more than the degree warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge sheet was filed. A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri observed that the prima facie opinion which is to be formed for exercising this power under Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. In the instant case, some persons, who were named in the FIR, were not arraigned as accused in the charge sheet since the investigating officer found that they were in Jaipur city when the incident took place in Kanaur. During their examination in chief, the complainants reiterated the statements they made to the police and on that basis, the trial court, exercising its powers under Section 319 CrPC, summoned these persons. The high court also rejected their p...

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shri. Abhay Shantilal Jain, vs The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Jamner Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, has held that re-payment of loan amount will not have any adverse effect on a criminal prosecution. The bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice KK Sonawane was hearing an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered against members of a cooperative credit society. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/mere-repayment-money-cant-ground-quashing-cheating-case-bombay-hc/

The Madhya Pradesh in NAVAL KISHORE GATTANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH held that while exercising jurisdiction of section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code this court cannot indulge in a “roving inquiry” to ascertain the two conflicting versions concerned to any incident whether it is correct or not. Furthermore the court held it is the sole domain of the trial court to enquire and deduce to the truth of two conflicting versions relating to the incident one given by the petitioner and the other by the prosecution.

While deciding in Hussain vs Union of India, the division bench of Supreme Court issued the following directions: (i) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week; (ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within two years; (iii) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases, which are five years old, by the end of the year; (iv) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded, such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the trial courts concerned from time to time; (v) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. emphasis added) (vi) The high courts are requested to ensure that bail applications ...

State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Vitthal Mule, R/o. Kasheli, Tal. Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri JUDGMENT Prakash D. Naik, J. - Heard learned APP for Appellant-State and learned counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been preferred by invoking Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') against judgment and order dated 16 April 1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur in Summary Criminal Case No.224 of 1996. 2. The Respondent-accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with summary procedure as envisaged under Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C.. By judgment and order dated 16 April 1999, the Trial Court has acquitted the Respondent-accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follo...