Legal Reference Library

In Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court while dealing with various issues including cheating and fraud stated that a litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applicati...

In Pragti Devi Vs. State of U.P. the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, it is a fact that at the time of passing order on point of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is expected to consider as to whether prima facie evidence for summoning the accused are available or not. But this consideration has to be after application of judicial mind, and not blindly. Magistrate is not expected only to read the words uttered by witnesses under sections 200 or 202 CrPC, but he also is required to use its judicial mind before passing any order and not to act like a silent spectators of the words uttered by the witnesses, who were not going to be cross-examined at the stage of evidences under Chapter XV CrPC. Even in the aforesaid judgment of Km. Nisha case (supra), this court had cited certain verdicts of Hon’ble Apex Court, which are again reiterated.

The Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag, has held that pendency of a criminal case against an employee cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him/her for an indefinite period. In the instant case, a complaint for criminal breach of trust was lodged against a bank employee in February 2007. In September 2008, the competent authority initiated departmental inquiry against her. Contending that Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement, which grants protection to bank employees from facing departmental proceedings until the completion of the trial of the criminal case, the delinquent employee approached the High Court against initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A Single Bench order staying disciplinary proceedings until conclusion of criminal trial was later modified by the Division Bench observing that the authority would be free to proceed further in the disciplinary proceedings as soon as the case from the prosecu...

Supreme Court:  Deciding the question as to whether an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking can be considered to be ‘Public servant’ under Section 197 CrPC, the bench of Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ held that the protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to the officers of Government Companies or the public undertakings even when such public undertakings are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive control of the government. In the present case, the respondent, who was convicted for offences punishable under Section 409/467/468/471 IPC, had contended that he being an employee of the appellant Corporation was a public servant and the trial had commenced without obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC and hence, the trial in entirety was invalid and as a result the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside. The Court rejected the aforesaid contention and held that the responden...

Mere registration of criminal case cannot be a ground to revoke an arms license, the Bombay High Court has held while directing Pune Commissioner of Police to consider afresh an application of a Shiv Sena leader seeking renewal of his license. A division bench of Justices N H Patil and P D Naik gave the direction while hearing a petition filed by Shiv Sena leader Ajay Bhosale from Pune, challenging a February 2011 order of revocation of his arms licence passed by the Pune Police Com .. The license was revoked on the ground that there were several criminal cases filed against Bhosale in 1991. According to the petition, Bhosale, who was elected as municipal councillor in Pune in 2003, had applied for license to possess a fire arm for self-protection. The Pune police commissioner, being the licensing authority, granted the license which was renewed from time-to-time till 2009. Bhosale's lawyer S B Shetye argued that under section 17(B) of the Arms Act, license can be revoked only if t...