Legal Reference Library

The Allahabad High Court in Bimal Kumar S/o Arun Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P.  has held that when an acquittal was obtained by playing fraud upon the court, it is no acquittal in the eyes of law, and in such a case the bar of Section 362 CrPC would not come into play. Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava made this observation while disposing of a challenge against an order by the trial court wherein it recalled its acquittal order after it came to know that fraud was played upon the court by impersonating the witnesses. The trial court ordered a fresh trial be held from the stage of recording of prosecution witnesses. The accused challenged this order of the trial court, relying on Section 362 CrPC, contending that once a judgment has been delivered, the same cannot be reopened by the trial court. Negating the challenge, the court observed: “If the acquittal was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court, it is no acquittal in the eyes of law and no sanctity or credibility can be...

In Member Secretary, Teliamura Nagar Panchayat vs Shri Samar Bhusan Sarkar, The first bench of Tripura High Court has directed all trial judges in the state to “remain alive” at the time of recording evidence and to actively participate in the process and to control the criminal trial by such active participation to find out the truth and to ensure justice.

In The trial of a suit commences with the framing of issues. The trial of the suit commences at the stage of the first witness of the plaintiff adducing evidence and concludes with the argument of the parties. In the case of Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1926 the Supreme Court held that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code does not ,either expressly or by necessary implication, provide that the power under the said provision should be exercised at a particular stage only and in the absence of any restriction placed by the statutory provision, it is open to the Court to exercise that power at any stage. Even in the subsequent decision in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the defendant petitioner the Supreme Court held that the trial Court can exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, at any stage of the suit and at any time before the conclusion of the trial.

The high court of Bombay at Goa has held that a trial court cannot direct framing of charges against an accused for abetment to commit suicide and alternatively for murder. The order comes in the case of an accused arrested for allegedly being responsible for the death of a youth at Valpoi in 2014. Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/HC-Cant-frame-same-person-for-murder-and-suicide-abetment/articleshow/52719326.cms

Supreme Court in Hardei vs. State of UP, has held that choice of police not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the trial court under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon such a person on account of evidence recorded during trial. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh dismissed an appeal against High Court order refusing to set aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning a ‘suspect’, in exercise of power under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, to face trial in Sessions Trial. One of the contention on behalf of the summoned person was that he was not named as an accused in the FIR nor any charge-sheet was submitted against her after completion of investigation. Rejecting the aforesaid contention, the Bench observed that F.I.R. may not contain all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused and it is not expected to be an encyclopaedia even of facts already known. The Court further held “The...