| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
|
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 154(1) & 156(3) — FIR & Power of Magistrate to order investigation— on the basis of an order made directing investigation u/s 156(3) — the officer incharge of the concerned police station is under an obligation to register FIR — & to commence investigation— though there may not be any specific direction to register FIR. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 156(3), 397 & 482 — Quashing of the FIR —Order passed by magistrate u/s 156(3) — Pointed out by the Court —that a remedy u/s 397 is available — Submission that Revisional Court cannot quash FIR — remedy available cannot be an efficacious remedy — Held, we accept the submission made by the learned counsel — the learned Magistrate could not have passed an order u/s 156(3) post cognizance stage —strong prima facie case made out — Interim relief granted as prayed. (Para 6, 14 & 15) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 156 (3 ) — Power of magistrate under — Exercising of — Complaint at postcognizance stage— Held,the learned Magistrate could not have exercised the power — which is to be exercised at precognizance stage— order of the learned Magistrate is completely illegal— Apart from that the learned Magistrate completely overlooked the order & specific directions issued by the Additional Sessions Judge. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — S 156(3) — An order directing investigation under — is not an interlocutory order but it is in the nature of a final order disposing of the complaint. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 156(1)&(3) — conjoint reading — Power u/s 156(3) — Exercising of —the power can be exercised only in cognizable cases. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 156(3) — Order under —culminates into registration of FIR — the Revisional Court is powerless to pass an order of quashing the FIR & quashing a charge sheet filed on the basis of the FIR CrPC — Ss 398, 399 and 401. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 156(3) — Order under — Remedy of Revision under CrPC — Held, in a case where on the basis of an order u/s 156(3), FIR is registered — the remedy of revision under the Code for challenging the order will not be an efficacious remedy at all Sections 398, 399 and 401. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 156(3) & 397 — Efficacious remedy — Registration of FIR on the basis of an order u/s 156(3) — a revision u/s 397 of the Code is not at all an efficacious remedy. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 216 —Framing of alternative charge — framed after 26 out of 27 witnesses were examined —Accused punished under alternative charge — Witnesses not recalled —Held, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to re-call the witnesses —examine them in the context of the alternative charge & allow the accused persons to cross-examine those witnesses —Nothing of that sort has happened — case was not even adjourned — Mandatory procedure prescribed u/ss 216 & 217, CrPC violated —Trial under alternative charge is clearly vitiated — Conviction under alternative charge set aside — IPC — S 302. (Para 8 & 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 216 —Framing of alternative charge — Scope of — Though it is permissible for any Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced — Looking into the interest of the accused person —Certain safeguards — are also provided specifically under sub-sections (3)&(4). (Para 9) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 216(3) — Scope — stipulates that with the alteration or addition to a charge if any prejudice is going to be caused to the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case —the Court has to proceed with the trial as if it altered or added the original charge by terming the additional or alternative charge as original charge. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — S 216(3) — Interpretation of — Additional or Alternative charge — is to be treated as charge made for the first time and trial has to proceed from that stage. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — S 216(4) — Scope of — in case of Additional or Alternative charge — the section empowers the Court — to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary — A new trial is insisted if the charge is altogether different and distinct. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Intention of Legislation — CrPC — S 216 — Provision for adjourning the trial — Purpose of — Even if the charge may be of same species — the provision for adjourning the trial is made to give sufficient opportunity to the accused to prepare and defend himself. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 216— Alteration of Charge — Original charge vis-à-vis Alternative charge —Charge altered after examination of almost all the witnesses — Held, when the appellants are charged with an offence u/s 306 — the focus as well as stress in the cross-examination shall be on that charge alone — At the end of the trial, the charge is altered with “Alternative Charge” u/s 302 IPC — This gives altogether a different complexion and dimension to the prosecution case— IPC — S 302 & 306. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 216— Alternative charge of murder — Held, bound to create prejudice to the appellants— Such a charge has to be treated as original charge— it was incumbent upon the prosecution to re-call the witnesses— examine them in the context of the charge under Section 302 of IPC — & allow the accused persons to cross-examine those witnesses— Nothing of that sort has happened—Trial vitiated— IPC — S 302. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 216— Framing of alternative charge — Testimony of witnesses recorded prior to that date could even be taken into consideration. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Mandatory provisions — Compliance of — CrPC — S 216 & 217 — Nature of — Mandatory in nature — as they not only sub-serve the requirement of principles of natural justice — but guarantee an important right — which is given to the accused persons to defend themselves appropriately by giving them full opportunity. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 216— Framing of alternative charge —Cross-examination of the witnesses, in the process — is an important facet of this right guaranteed u/ss 216 & 217. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 217 —Alteration or addition of charge — Procedure — the prosecutor as well as the accused shall be allowed — to recall or re-summon — or examine any witnesses — who have already been examined with reference to such alteration or addition — In such circumstances, the Court is to even allow any further witness — which the Court thinks to be material in regard to the altered or additional charge. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 329 & 330 —Release of lunatic pending investigation or trial —Application for — enquiry u/s 329, CrPC by trial Court — Application rejected— Expert opinion — Held, trial Court has not considered number of reports by experts— Competent witnesses — Non examination in course of enquiry — Held, enquiry cannot be said to be complete in all respects u/s 329 — order passed ignoring the relevant material on record — unsustainable in law — Matter is remanded to the Trial Court. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal jurisprudence — CrPC — S 329 — Enquiry under — Legal position of — Held, enquiry is treated as part of trial — when Trial Court is of the view that Accused is a man of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence — after considering the medical report in this regard — the Court should postpone further proceeding of case — trial will start as soon as he is found to be capable of making his defence. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Duty of the Court — CrPC — S 329 — Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court — It is mandatory that when plea of unsoundness of mind is raised before the Court — it shall try the fact of unsoundness of mind — & incapability of Accused at the first instance. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Duty of the Court — CrPC — S 329 — Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court — Two stages of procedure — First stage — it must appear to the Judge that Accused placed on trial was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence — Next stage — when unsoundness & incapability appear — has to be enquired into on the basis of material placed before the Court — decision in this regard cannot be based merely on the information received from doctors — but it must be based on evidence and the entire material brought forth before the Court. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 397 — Power of the High Court or the Sessions Court under — is confined to testing the legality, validity and propriety of the orders — passed by the Courts which are subordinate to the High Court or the Sessions Court — as the case may be. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Quashing of FIR — Sections 398, 399 and 401 — Conjoint reading — Revisional Court — Power of — there is no power conferred on the Revisional Court to quash FIR, registered u/s 154(1) & the investigation carried out on the basis of that — & to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of charge sheet, which may be eventually filed — CrPC — S 154(1). (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC —Sections 398, 399 and 401 — Quashing of FIR — Revisional Jurisdiction of the Court — Entertaining a Revisional Application —against an order u/s 156(3) where FIR on the basis of the said order is already registered — in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, neither High Court nor Sessions Court can quash the FIR and proceedings subsequent to the FIR — CrPC — S 156(3). (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 439 — NI Act — S 138 — Imposition of Short sentence & compensation by the Courts below — Reliying on ratio of judgment in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Another — the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh — without prejudice to his rights and contentions and subject to final outcome of the revision applications — if the appeal succeds original complainant is bound to return the aforesaid amount to the applicant — Sentence suspended — Bail granted. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 439(2) —Regular Bail — Application for cancellation — IPC — Ss 376, 493, 406, 420 & 114— Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Section 3(2)(5) — Educated Prosecutrix — studying in medical college — developed relationship with the accused — continued for more than 2½ years — Observation by trial Court — since accused refused to marry, the same would not cover the offence of rape — Held, Considering the role played by the accused, the Court below rightly granted Bail — Application dismissed. (Para 4) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 439(2) —Bail — Cancellation of — Held, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner — without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial — Dolatram and others V/s. State of Haryana — relied (Para 5) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 439(2) — Power of the Appellate Court under — Regular Bail — Cancellation of — Held, when the accused has been released on regular bail — & has not committed any breach of conditions imposed by the court — there are no reasons to exercise the power u/s 439(2). (Para 5) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 482 — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — has to be exercised in rare cases — Efficacious remedy — Availablity of — Normally the Applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court u/s 482 — should not be permitted to invoke the same when an efficacious remedy is available under statute. (Para 6) |
PDF |