| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
|
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 154 — FIR — Delay in recording — matter was not reported to police for 2 days — Held, the delay in recording F.I.R. is an important aspect of this case and has created suspicion in the entire prosecution case— Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact. (Para 25 & 27) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 161 — Statement of the witness — failure to record — Deposition of Medical officer — the deceased gave him the history of her injuries — Held, Such statement would amount to oral dying declaration — the doctor was always a prosecution witness and police would have certainly recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC — failure to do — fatal to prosecution — evidence discarded — Evidence Act — S 32. (Para 29) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 397(2) vis-à-vis Section 482 — Revisional power of High Court & Inherent power Court — Ban on inherent power of the Court — Held, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where — abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court’s jurisdiction— The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 397(2) vis-à-vis Section 482 — Revisional power of High Court & Inherent power Court — Ban on inherent power of the Court — Held, since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory — a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! — A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 399 — Suo-motto revisional jurisdiction —Exercising of — by Sessions Court — Non speaking order — effect of — Not clear from the impugned order — that the learned Judge has considered the revision preferred by the petitioner-accused on merits— Order quashed and set aside —Direction to the learned Sessions Judge— to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners-accused or their counsel— Petitions partly allowed. (Para 15 & 16) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 399— Sessions Judge's powers of revision —(1) In any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself — the Sessions Judge may exercise all — or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401—(2) Any proceeding commenced before a Sessions Judge by way of revision under sub-section (1) — the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding — & references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge —(3) Application for revision made before the Sessions Judge — the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon — shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 399 — Sessions Judge’s powers of revision — Scope of — Even the Sessions Judge is obliged to hear the accused or other person — if he proposes to make any order adverse to that person while exercising his revisional powers — Such person may be heard personally or through his lawyer — Bomab Rustom Irani Vs. State of Maharashtra — relied. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 399 & 401(2) — Powers under — Suo motto revision proceeding by Sessions Court — Held, it would be just and appropriate if the Sessions Court register the separate Suo Motto proceeding of the revision — alongwith the revision preferred by the accused — & also give notice of the said suo motto revision to the accused — or otherwise at the most the learned Sessions Judge may pass an order — in that event, bound to follow the provisions of Sub section (2) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 401(2) — Revisional Power — Scope of — The High Court cannot pass any order to the prejudice of the accused — or other persons — unless that person has had an opportunity of being heard — either personally or by pleader — in his own defence — It is thus, incumbent upon, the Sessions Judge — to hear the accused, if the Sessions Judge proposes to make any order adverse to the accused or other persons. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 452 —Disposal of Case property after conclusion of trial — Acquittal of accused — some of the accused absconding —case property not recovered from accused —but recovered from petitioner, i.e. goldsmith —Held, such valuable muddamal would certainly be useful to him for his business and livelihood — property handed over to petitioner. (Para 2) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — 406, 420 & 120 B r/w 34 — Issuance of process — Quashing of — The complaint does not contain any ingredient of Cheating, Criminal breach of trust or conspiracy — Held, Suffice it to say that mere breach of the contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution as alleged — unless the averments in the complaint prima facie disclose essential ingredients of the offence — no averments to indicate that the accused had entered into an agreement with dishonest intention — Breach of terms of the agreement, if any, would at the most give rise to civil cause of action — Order of issuing process quashed & set aside. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 482 & 397(2) — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — Principles — (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; —(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; —(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code — Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra —relied. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 482 & 397(2) — Inherent powers of the High Court — Bar on — the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order— Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra —relied. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 482 — Inherent powers of the High Court — Invoking of — on the basis of compromise in non compoundable offence — Wife entered into compromise subject to the accused-husband who was in jail transfers properties in her name and in the name of her son — Held, It clearly shows that the object of compounding is not to maintain cordial relationship— What appears is that as the accused is in jail, an advantage is being taken — Held, such compromise cannot recorded and acted upon— IPC — S 307 — Criminal Application No.2206/2016 —referred. (Para 21) |
PDF |