Legal Reference Library

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...

Explaining the difference between Sections 301 and 302 CrPC, the Court said that the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the public prosecutor. It is because the legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court, however, as far as Section 302 CrPC is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently. It was further clarified that the role of the informant or the private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a Court of Session and the counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of public prosecutor. The bench of Dipak Misra and A.K. Goel, JJ also clarified that the said provision applies to every stage including the stage of framing charge inasmuch as the complainant is permitted by the Magistrate to conduct the pros...

The Supreme Court in Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan, has observed that though motive is not sine qua non for the conviction of the accused, the effect of not proving motive raises a suspicion in the mind. The main contention of the appellant before the apex court in this case was that there was no motive behind the killing and it is beyond imagination that a person without any provocation, motive or instigation will straight away open fire. The accused had challenged his conviction under Section 302 IPC by the High Court of Rajasthan. Setting aside the conviction and sentence, the Bench comprising Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice R.K. Agrawal held: “Moreover, the prosecution is not able to prove the motive clearly. Though motive is not sine qua non for the conviction of the appellant-accused, the effect of not proving motive raises a suspicion in the mind. In the present case, it appears that the theory behind motive has been given after much thought process.” Giving the benefit of d...

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab through CBI, has summarized the principles governing requirement of sanction to prosecute Government servants and held that the offence committed by the Government servants must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. The Court also observed that Protection of sanction, which is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty, cannot be camouflaged by them to commit crime. Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Misra made the following observations in an appeal by some police officers accused of fake encounter in Punjab. The question before the Apex Court was whether in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 the prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Govern...

The Supreme Court, in Nagabhushanammal (D) by LRS. Vs. C. Chandikeswaralingam, has put an end to five decade long property dispute between members of a family who, upon the direction of the court, finally agreed for a reasonable settlement. Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman held that an earlier suit for possession does not bar institution of a later suit for partition and it is not hit by Principle of Res Judicata. In this case, the trial court held that the suit for partition was hit by the principle of res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit for possession. The Appellate court had reversed the finding holding that the suit is not hit by Res Judicata. The Apex court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1962, based on the settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour and the sufferance of the dismissal of the suit, will not, in any way, be a bar for making a claim for her share, if any, of the family property, if otherwise...