THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT. 12 Nov. 2013- Registration of FIR by police in cognizable offence is must and action must be taken against officials for not lodging a case on the complaint filed in such offences.- Supreme Court.(PTI) 09/11/2013: Supreme Court stayed Gauhati High Court order that declared CBI as unconstitutional. 06-11-2013 -"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946"-GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
LATEST JUDGEMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS
SEARCH JUDGEMENTS
Loading
 
Bombay High Court

Judgement Dated: 18-Jul-2009

Head note: The exercise of monitoring the investigation and the power vested in the High Court to issue a writ of continuing mandamus would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the investigation is so very unjust and unfair and is in unlawful exercise of statutory discretion, the court could interfere and monitor the investigation even after a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Judgement:
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.): The facts that emerge can be summed up from the Writ Petition and the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner. V.G. Patil who was the President of the Jalgaon District Congress Committee, was brutally murdered by two assailants in the early morning hours of 21st September 2005. The Petitioner is the widow of the deceased. The incident was witnessed by Mahendra P. Mahajan on whose statement the first information report, 1 was registered at the Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. The investigation at the initial stage was conducted by N.S. Ghuge, Inspector of Police. Though the FIR was registered by the Zilla Peth Police Station, the investigation of the crime was transferred by the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon to the local Crime Branch on the very day, 21st September 2005. The investigation was conducted by the said Police Officer. While investigating the matter, he examined some witnesses; prepared a spot panchnama and inquest panchnama; obtained the cause of death certificate and recorded 1 Crime No.242 of 2005 3 the statements of several witnesses including Jayant Patil who was the nephew of the deceased. After receiving the investigation papers, he claims to have carried out the investigation and to have recorded the statements of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that she suspected the involvement of one Suresh Patil, Dr.Ulhas Patil and Rajesh Kotwal. Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane were arrested on 30th September 2005. The investigation was transferred from the local Crime Branch to CID, Jalgaon, when the investigation by Mr. Ghuge ended. According to him, marshalling of the call records was not done till 30th September 2005. 2. The Petitioner had filed a Criminal Writ Petition,2 before which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court by an order dated 23rd February 2007. In that Writ Petition, the Petitioner had expressed doubts about the genuineness and fairness of the investigation being conducted by the CID. During the pendency of that Petition, the Government took a decision to transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In pursuance of this decision, a communication dated 17th March 2006 of the Principal Secretary (Special) Home was sent to the Director, Central Bureau 2 W.P.No.646 of 2006 4 of Investigation. By a letter dated 1st June 2006, the Director of CBI stated that this was not a fit case where the CBI should conduct the investigation. The Division Bench in its order observed thus: 10. ........... Considering the chequered history of the present case, the developments which have taken place after filing of the charge sheet, issues involved and the reference to alleged conspiracy by the influential political leaders of the region, in our opinion, the decision of the State Government that the investigation of this case should be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation is justified. Having regard to the importance of issues involved and the alleged complicity of the influential political leaders referred to in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the petition, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case where the investigation should be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation. 11. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). Prayer clause (D) does not survive since the investigation is transferred to respondent No.7 Central Bureau of Investigation. Appropriate steps be taken by the concerned Authority for implementation of this order at the earliest. 3. The State CID had filed a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 22nd December 2005. In this charge sheet, only four persons were shown as assailants/accused: Raju Pundlik Mali (accused No.1), Raju Chintaman Sonawane, (accused No.2), Leeladhar Pundlik Narkhede, (accused No.3), and Damodar 5 Lokhande, (accused No.4). On the basis of this charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.3 The Competent Court granted permission to the investigating agency for conducting a further investigation. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted at a subsequent stage. Two accused, namely, Leeladhar Narkhede and Damodar Lokhande had filed a Writ Petition before the Aurangabad Bench for quashing the FIR, filed against them which was allowed on 3rd February 2006 and the FIR against these two persons was quashed. Against this order, the State had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. This Appeal filed by the State came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18th April 2007. Writ Petition No.646 of 2005 was filed subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, as already noticed, in that Writ Petition, the Court had directed that further investigation in terms of the order of the High Court should be transferred to CBI. The order of this Court transferring the investigation to CBI was not challenged. The CBI conducted further investigation, examined various witnesses and claims to have subjected a number of persons to Narco analysis and other tests whereafter it filed a supplementary charge sheet on 19th June 2008. In the 3 Sessions Case No.8 of 2006 6 supplementary chargesheet, CBI attributed a role in the commission of the crime to Damodar Lokhande and Leeladhar Narkhede. While filing the first supplementary charge sheet, the investigating agency made a prayer to take additional evidence on record in support of the charge sheet already filed. This was taken on record by the trial Court. A second supplementary charge sheet was filed by CBI on 6th October 2008 wherein the names of accused Nos.3 and 4 were again sought to be added as accused. This was taken on record by the concerned Court and accused Nos.3 and 4 were also directed to be summoned to face trial for the offence. In the second supplementary charge sheet filed on 6th October 2008, it has been specifically mentioned by the investigating agency that on the basis of the previous evidence collected by the investigating agency at the time of the filing of the first charge sheet, the FIR against these two accused had been quashed and it was relying upon the subsequent investigation. This fact was also stated under the head Charge. In the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reliance on the evidence collected subsequently was placed. 4. The trial before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge had been stayed by an order of this Court dated 19th December 2007. 7 Another aspect which needs to be noticed at this stage is that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, on 21st September 2005 CBI filed an application seeking directions from the Court that accused Nos.3 and 4 should undergo a Narco analysis test. As the accused failed to appear, the court by its order dated 28th September 2006 issued a bailable warrant for their production before the Court. Thereupon Writ Petition No. 578 of 2007 was filed by those two accused before the Aurangabad Bench challenging the order dated 28th September 2006 in which, by an order dated 1st October 2007, a learned Single Judge of Aurangabad Bench stayed the order. It appears from the record that the accused appeared and accepted that they would subject themselves to the Narco analysis test. In these circumstances, the writ petition did not survive. 5. The present Writ Petition had been filed in the year 2007 and came up for hearing. In view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19th December 2007, proceedings in Sessions Case No.8 of 2006 were stayed until further orders. 6. In this Writ Petition, accused Nos.3 and 4 have not been 8 added as party Respondents. Accused Nos.3 and 4 moved an application for intervention. The Application was also heard and was practically allowed inasmuch as intervening accused Nos.3 and 4 were heard at length on merits. One of the assailants, namely, Raju Mali who was all through the period in custody, was found to be suffering from AIDS and is stated to have died on 6th April 2007. Proceedings against him came to an end. 7. Various Benches of this Court dealing with the matter passed directions from time to time in relation to the investigation being conducted by the CBI. By an order dated 30th June 2008, the Court had directed the investigating agency to complete the proceedings expeditiously. On 6th October 2008, the Court was informed that an additional charge sheet against two persons would be filed and it was left open for the trial Court to accept the charge sheet in accordance with law. Eleven progress/interim reports were filed by different investigating agencies, particularly by the CBI during the pendency of the Writ Petition. By an order dated 4th December 2008, a Division Bench of this Court was of the opinion that there are certain areas which still required to be investigated and that the investigating agency should look into all those matters and submit a 9 report. A report was filed before this Court. By orders dated 12th January 2009 and 8th April 2009, further directions were issued to the CBI to produce a complete report and particular documents to satisfy the Court that there has been a just and fair investigation. These records were produced and the first Investigating Officer, namely, N.S. Ghuge was called upon by the Court to clarify the position appearing from the record of the investigation, to which he had made a vague statement. Therefore, he was directed by an order dated 9th April 2009 to file a proper affidavit, clearing the doubt shown in the investigation and as pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The investigating officer filed an affidavit dated 15th April 2009 which we shall shortly proceed to discuss. 8. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the investigation has been unjust and unfair; as the investigating agency has ignored material pieces of evidence primarily to favour two suspects, Dr. G.N. Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil, who, according to the Petitioner, are influential persons. Despite the fact that the Court had been continuously supervising or monitoring the investigation of the case, the investigating agency 10 has, according to the petitioner, withheld the record from the Court and complete records have not been filed along with the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mysterious death of Raju Mali while in custody, it was urged, casts a shadow of doubt on the investigation. The mobile records, the interview of the accused, panchnama dated 3rd October 2005 are some of the features pressed in aid to submit on the involvement of the above stated two persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2, according to Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, were the assailants, while accused Nos.3 and 4 were monitoring the commission of the crime in conspiracy with the said two persons. 9. The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, submitted that once a charge sheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 this Court should not deal with the matter and control the investigation proceedings by issuing a writ of continuing mandamus. It was also contended that the investigating agency has conducted a conscious, just and fair investigation free of any influence and has taken recourse to all possible methods of 11 technical investigation and, after collecting the evidence upon a further investigation, filed a first and second supplementary charge sheet. Material was found only against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the final report submitted before the Court on 12th January 2009, it has been stated as follows : 16. Detailed analysis of the phone calls of Dr. G.N. Patil, Dr. Ulhas Patil, Damodhar Lokhande, Leeladhar Narkhede, Raju Mali and Sh. V.G. Patil was again made and further examination of Dr. G.N. Patil, Dr. Ulhas Patil and Shri Ramesh Chaudhary on the calls made or received by them was done to find out the nature of conversation amongst them during the relevant period. They were asked about each and every conversation with the accused persons, if any, from 16.9.05 to 21.9.05. However, it has not revealed any new fact. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 23. Pursuant to the orders of this Honble Court, the Investigating Officer/other officers have spent 14 days at Jalgaon to ensure that the investigation is as thorough as possible and that there is no loose end left untied. After the aforementioned investigation, it is clear that the case of enmity of V.G. Patil with Dr. G.N. Patil or Dr. Ulhas Patil or Ramesh Chaudhary being the motive for murder of Shri V.G. Patil is hardly established. The further investigation has shown that although V.G. Patil and the other three were in two different political camps, but at social and personal level, they did not have enmity of the kind alleged by the Petitioner. The very fact that the children of V.G. Patil received education in the institution of G.N. Patil and his family, and the other facts revealed during investigation, is inconsistent 12 with any motive from the side of Ulhas Patil, G.N. Patil or Ramesh Chaudhary to murder V.G. Patil. 24. In view of the fact that the CBI wanted to complete the investigation in its entirety, it continued to examine the witnesses and other concerned persons till 9.1.2009. Hence the report is being filed on 12.1.2009. It may also be mentioned that some of the witnesses were busy with the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. In view of the above, the said delay in filing the report may kindly be condoned by this Honble Court. 10. In view of the above, it was submitted that investigation falls in the domain of the investigating agency and unless some glaring or unconscionable factors were brought to the notice of the Court, the Court should leave the investigating agency to conduct investigation free and without any particular directive. 11. We are called upon to examine and determine the following questions : (a) Whether this Court has fallen in legal error in issuing a writ of continuing mandamus (interim directions) despite the fact that the charge sheet report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In other words whether 13 the Court loses jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the filing of the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Competent Court; (b) Whether the investigation in the present case has been so unjust and unfair that despite filing of the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Writ Petition should be kept pending and the Court should supervise the investigation of the case when the trial of the case has commenced before the Sessions Court; (c) Whether the investigating agency has ignored and/or not taken into consideration relevant pieces of evidence during the investigation and that this has caused prejudice to the Petitioners interest, leaving her remediless; and the larger public interest has suffered as the investigating agency is trying to protect G.N. Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil; and whether this Court should interfere and issue directions for impleadment or deletion of the accused; and 14 (d) Depending on the discussion on the above issues, what interim directions should be issued by the Court including vacating the interim order. 12. From the narration of the above facts, it is clear that various parties have been approaching the High Court by filing Writ Petitions from time to time in relation to one or the other facets of this case. The FIR in this case was registered on 21st September 2005. The investigation was commenced by the local police station but was immediately transferred to the Crime Branch of the State. Right from the beginning the accused or the suspects had been raising an objection before the Court that they are being falsely implicated in the case despite the fact that they have no role to play in the incident, primarily for the reason that it is based on political vendetta. On the other hand, the Petitioner and some other interested persons have consistently raised the plea that the suspects have high connections and they have been able to influence the investigation and the investigating agencies were not able to fairly perform their duties. Taking into consideration the various averments made, a Division Bench of this Court had 15 transferred the investigation of the case to CBI and the investigation was taken over by CBI after the order dated 23rd February 2007. Thereafter CBI filed a supplementary charge sheet in terms of Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioner was still dissatisfied and filed the present Writ Petition. Consequent upon the directions issued by the Court in the present Writ Petition from time to time, the CBI has dealt with the matter with all seriousness and the investigation was carried out with objectivity, with the aid of forensic science. Various tests like a Narco Analysis test were deployed and statements of the witnesses were recorded. In the second supplementary charge sheet filed by CBI, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been reintroduced as accused despite the fact that the FIR lodged on 21st September 2005 has been quashed against them by the order of the Court dated 3rd February 2006. The directions contained in the order sheet and the progress reports placed on record by the CBI on 6th September 2007, 19th December 2007, 30th June 2008 and 25th July 2008, demonstrate that the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction by different Benches of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that a charge sheet had been filed on 22nd December 2005 would not as an 16 absolute rule of law exclude the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 particularly in view of the circumstances of the case. This view is also substantiated by the fact that the order transferring the investigation of the case to CBI was passed by the Court on 23rd February 2007 and the learned trial Court had granted permission for further investigation to the CBI under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 13. We will now examine the law governing the field. In Vineet Narain vs Union of India and another,4 the Supreme Court was considering the investigation in the Hawala case with reference to particular documents as well as the manner in which the investigation was carried out. The Supreme Court, while issuing general directions in relation to pending as well as future investigation held as under : 8. The sum and substance of these orders is that the CBI and other governmental agencies had not carried out their public duty to investigate the offences disclosed; that none stands above the law so that an alleged offence by him is not required to be investigated; that we would monitor the investigations, in the sense that we would do what we permissibly could to see that the investigations progressed while yet ensuring that we did not direct or channel those investigations or in any other manner 4 (1998) 1 SCC 226 17 prejudice the right of those who might be accused to a full and fair trial. We made it clear that the task of the monitoring court would end the moment a chargesheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation and that the ordinary processes of the law would then take over. Having regard to the direction in which the investigation were leading, we found it necessary to direct the CBI not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive, this was done to eliminate any impression of bias or lack of fairness or objectivity and to maintain the credibility of the investigations. In short, the procedure adopted was of continuing mandamus. 14. While emphasizing the need for proper investigation the Supreme Court held that persons against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime have to be treated equally under the law and probity in public life is of great significance. Clarifying the attitude of the Court in such proceedings, the Court said that the Court is to ensure that CBI and other government agencies do their duty strictly in conformity of law. In these proceedings the Court is not required to go into the merits of the case and these matters need to be considered by the competent Court in which a charge sheet is filed. However, the Court relied on the words of Lord Denning who said that, once a duty exists there should be a means of enforcing it. This duty can be enforced, .... either by action at the suit of the Attorney General 18 or by the prerogative order of mandamus. The Supreme Court further observed thus: 3, The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law: Be you ever so high, the law is above you. Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the government agencies. 4. In this proceeding we are not concerned with the merits of the accusations or the individuals alleged to be involved, but only with the performance of the legal duty by the government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every such accusation against every person, and to take the logical final action in accordance with law. 5. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made out and a chargesheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court which will then deal with that case on merits, in accordance with law. 6. However, if in respect of any such person the final report after full investigation is that no prima facie case is made out to proceed further, so that the case must be closed against him, that report6 must be promptly submitted to this Court for its satisfaction that the authorities concerned have not failed to perform their legal obligations and have reasonably 19 come to such conclusion. No such report having been submitted by the CBI or any other agency till now in this Court, action on such a report by this Court would be considered, if and when that occasion arises. We also direct that no settlement should be arrived at nor any offence compounded by any authority without prior leave of this Court. 15. In Union of India and others vs Sushil Kumar Modi and others,5 the Supreme Court took the view that once a charge sheet is filed in the competent Court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by the Court for the purpose of making the investigating agency perform its function of investigating into the offence comes to an end and thereafter it is only the Court in which the charge sheet is filed which has to deal with matters relating to the trial of the accused falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 16. In M.C. Abraham vs State of Maharashtra6, the Supreme Court stated the principle that though the investigation is in progress, it is the statutory duty of the investigating agency to submit a report to the Magistrate. It is open to a High Court in appropriate cases to give directions for prompt investigation. The High Court cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in accord 5 (1998) 8 SCC 661 6 (2003) 2 SCC 649 20 with the views of the Court since that would be an unwarranted interference with the investigation of the case and would inhibit the exercise of statutory power by the investigating agency. The Court cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a full and complete investigation report in relation to the allegation made in the first information and even material collected during investigation. 17. In Popular Muthiah vs State represented by Inspector of Police,7 the Supreme Court held thus: 21. The Code of Criminal Procedure is an exhaustive Code providing a complete machinery to investigate and try cases, appeals against the judgments. It has provisions at each stage to correct errors, failures of justice and abuse of process under the supervision and superintendence of the High Court as would be evident from the following: (i) The Court has the power to direct investigation in cognizable cases under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) A Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case himself under Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) When a charge sheet is filed, the court can refuse to accept the same and proceed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials on record. The Court can direct further 7 (2006)7 SCC 296 21 investigation into the matter. (iv) The Magistrate may treat a protest petition as a complaint and proceed to deal therewith in terms of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (v) Once the case is committed, the Sessions Judge may refer the matter to the High Court. (vi) In the event, without taking any further evidence, it is found that while passing the order of commitment, the Magistrate has committed an error in not referring the case of an accused or left out an accused after evidence is adduced, the court may proceed against a person who was not an accused provided it appear from the evidence that he should be tried with the accused. (vii) The revisional court during pendency of the trial may exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 in which case, it may direct further inquiry in terms of Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (viii) The revisional powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court are pointed out in the Code separately; from a perusal whereof it would appear that the High Court exercises larger power. (ix) In the event of any conviction by a court of Sessions, an appeal there against would lie to the High Court. The appellate court exercises the power laid down under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which event it may also take further direct evidence in terms of Section 391 thereof. (x) The High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to correct errors of the courts below and pass such orders as may be necessary to do justice to the parties and/ or to prevent the abuse of process of 22 court.
                   
                      22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, thus, provides for a corrective mechanism at each stage, viz., (i) investigation; (ii) trial; (iii) appeal and (iv) revision. 23 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in contrast to the old Code provides for cognizance of an offence and committal of a case as contradistinguished from cognizance of an offender or committal of an accused to the court of Sessions. 24 It is also significant to note that whereas inherent power of a court or a tribunal is generally recognised, such power has been recognized under the Code of Criminal Procedure only in the High Court and not in any other court. The High Court apart from exercising its revisional or inherent power indisputably may also exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in some matters in terms of Section 482 thereof. The High Court, therefore, has a prominent place in the Code of Criminal Procedure visavis the court of Sessions which is also possessed of a revisional power. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 30. In respect of the incidental or supplemental power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammeled by procedural restrictions in that (i) power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice to an accused. (ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefor. (iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unlimited. It can inter alia be 23 exercised where the Code is silent where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists. 31. This Court in Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, [(2001) 8 SCC 570] while dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court held: The principle embodied in the section is based upon the maxim: quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable. The section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the section. As lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law, the section has been embodied to cover such lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 36. In State Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 641], it was stated: Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words Nothing in this Code. Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma case this power cannot be 24 exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out hereinabove fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 41. The power to direct enquiry may not, thus, be held to be confined only to the original but also of appellate jurisdiction. Such a power can be exercised also as against the persons who were not the accused at the stage of trial. 42. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149], this Court held: Though such situations may arise only in extremely rare cases, the Sessions Court is not altogether powerless to deal with such situations to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It is then open to the Sessions Court to send a report to the High 25 Court detailing the situation so that the High Court can in its inherent powers or revisional powers direct the committing Magistrate to rectify the committal order by issuing process to such leftout accused. But we hasten to add that the said procedure need be resorted to only for rectifying or correcting such grave mistakes. [See also Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 1]. 43. Such a power evidently can be exercised even after the trial is over. 18. The principle is that investigation has to be fair, just and in accordance with law. The investigation must be conducted with commitment, devotion and accountability as these are basic parameters of criminal investigation. Once the investigation is fair and satisfies the other established parameters there would hardly be any occasion for the High Court to interfere or to oversee the investigation over a prolonged period. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs State of Punjab and others,8 the Supreme Court held that fair investigation and fair trial are concomitants to the preservation of the fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but the State has a larger obligation to maintain law and order and preserve peace and harmony in society. The Court has to exercise its supervisory power or power of 8 AIR 2009 SC 984 26 issuing mandamus in relation to a criminal investigation but it has to be exercised with great care and caution. The Court has to strike a balance between fair investigation and prevalence of the rule of law on the one hand and the interest of the accused on the other as it is presumed that the accused is innocent till proved guilty. Thus, any direction by the High Court which would impinge upon the powers of the investigating agency or the trial Court before whom the charge sheet is filed needs to be avoided. 19. This view also finds support from the dictum of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and others,9 where the Court held that a just balance has to be struck between citizens rights under Articles 19 and 21 and the expansive power of the police to investigate. 20. The power of judicial review and supervisory control is implicit in the Constitution and there is no express provision excluding this power. Judicial intervention and judicial review in consonance with stated principles is the heart and soul of the constitutional scheme. The right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is statutory in nature. But, the plenary power of 9 (2001)6 SCC 181 27 the police to investigate cases is not unlimited. The power is subject to recognized limitations. The power of the High Court to direct investigation by CBI wherever the investigating agency does not proceed with the case properly is implicit and the High Court can direct investigation by a special investigating agency. 21. The judgment in Vineet Narain (supra) established the principle that there has to be a fair and proper conduct of investigation expeditiously. This principle remains unchanged and is in fact followed in subsequent judgments. The stage of investigation is not the sole criteria for determining whether or not the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. In Sushil Kumar Modi (supra), the Supreme Court held that where the charge sheet has been filed, the trial Court is to deal with all matters relating to trial of accused including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Primarily, matters of trial and all further investigation can be dealt with by the trial Court handling the matter. But this is not an absolute rule of law which would completely oust the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 whenever a charge sheet is filed before the trial Court. Such a jurisdiction can be exercised by the 28 High Court within a limited compass and cannot be used as a means to interfere with the progress of the trial or, for that matter, further investigation but wherever there is a mala fide or colourable investigation or when the investigation is influenced by matters unconnected with a proper and fair investigation, the Court would have the jurisdiction to interfere in the matters. It is not for the High Court to appreciate matters of evidence but wherever an investigating agency has under extraneous influence conducted an investigation offensive to the preservation of the rule of law, the Court would have the jurisdiction to interfere and if necessary to monitor the investigation. The exercise of the power of monitoring vested in the High Court and the issuance of a continuing mandamus in the facts and circumstances of the present case was fully justified and it could continue even after filing of a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, that situation now does not arise inasmuch as we are finally disposing of the Writ Petition with certain directions. 22. Questions (b) and (c) can conveniently be dealt with together as they have a common basis. The petitioner contends that the investigation is tainted, unjust and unfair primarily with the 29 object of protecting influential persons, (Dr.G.N. Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil). It is also urged that the investigating agency has ignored material evidence or had not made complete and full efforts to detect the true culprits or to unravel the conspiracy in regard to the commission of the offence. In order to bring home this submission, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, placed stress on the following material irregularities or unfairness apparent on the face of the record in the investigation conducted by CBI:( a) The memorandum/panchnama dated 3rd October 2005 has not been given its due importance and has not been critically examined; (b) Complete records of mobile phones have not been affixed to the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet filed by the investigating agency. The records collected during investigation have not been correctly referred to in the reports as there were conversations on cell phones between the accused and the two suspects aforereferred. In other words, the prosecution has withheld 30 records from the Court; (c) The Narco Analysis test of the witnesses/accused points towards the fact that there are other persons involved in the commission of the crime which has also been ignored by the investigating agency; (d) The death of accused Raju Mali while in custody is a suspicious circumstance which demonstrates the unfairness of the investigation; and (e) The writing alleged to be that of the deceased accused Raju Mali (a copy whereof was placed on record) is stated to be a sufficient basis for involving the persons in question. 23. Before we commence our discussion on the plea that the investigation was unfair, unjust and tainted, it is necessary for the Court to set the record straight, by observing that the State investigating agency and, for that matter CBI, have not withheld 31 any records which were required to be produced under orders of the Court. The Investigating Officer Mr. Ghuge had made an attempt to avoid placing correct facts before the court which resulted in creating some ambiguity in the record of investigation. Thus, he was directed to file an affidavit by an order dated 9th April 2009 which he filed on 15th April 2009. The record produced and the affidavits filed by different parties have been carefully examined by us. Prima facie we are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the Petitioner that the investigating agency has withheld or failed to produce records as directed by the Court or the records which were necessary to be examined for the purpose of determining matters in controversy in the present case. The learned Solicitor General has not withheld any record from the court and had not expressed any reservation about producing the record for the perusal of the court. 24. Reference has also been made to an alleged statement of the deceasedaccused Raju Pundlik Mali dated 1.10.2005 where he has stated that he was a leader of the Mali society and was in the party of Dr. Ulhas Patil, Ex M.P. and Mr. Jayant Patil and deceased Patil was in the opposite party. After referring to the other allegations, it 32 is stated that on 16.9.2005 in the morning, he had brought his brotherinlaw Raju Sonawane on a bicycle and met Dr. Ulhas Patil in his hospital and told him that he was going to murder V.G. Patil and that he should complete the work of releasing him from the case, which he had agreed. This statement is alleged to have been made to the police while in police custody. This accused died before CBI could interrogate him and before commencement of trial. An application for recording the statement of accused Raju Sonawane was filed under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On this application, the court has not passed any orders on the ground that the matter was pending before the High Court and the application may be considered after the stay is vacated by the High Court. It was argued on behalf of the CBI that the investigation of the case has been transferred earlier to CID and thereafter to CBI in February, 2007 and the CBI has thereafter investigated all the aspects of the matter and it has not found any convincing evidence regarding the alleged statement made in the year 2005 by the deceasedaccused who died on 6.4.2007. As far as the application by accused Raju Sonawane is concerned, it was not moved by the said accused before the competent court though he was arrested in September, 2005. It has been filed in 2008 and is pending before 33 the court. CBI does not have any objection to the application being decided in accordance with law by the Learned Trial Judge. 25. Another document which was produced by the petitioner during the course of the hearing of this writ petition is an alleged statement made by Raju Mali, deceasedaccused which is undated. This statement is alleged to have been written by the deceasedaccused and handed over to one of his relatives. It is contended that this statement was never produced before the trial court or CBI or even in this court though the accused died in 2007 and when the matter is pending during this period. Besides alleging that it is a fabricated document, it is also contended that it has been allegedly stated that deceased Raju Mali alone had murdered the deceased and Raju Sonawane (accused No.2) has nothing to do with it. The deceasedaccused had acted on the instructions of Dr. Ulhas Patil and Mr. Jayant Patil but they did not help him all this time and therefore, he was disclosing their names. He has also raised a grievance against his wife who did not come to see him in his last days. The CBI had no occasion to look into the statement or to investigate its truthfulness or otherwise. 34 26. The names of various persons have been mentioned in different reports filed by the CBI, including of Narkhede and Lokhande, the two accused who have been added subsequently. This is stated to be the result of further investigation by the CBI. Accused Raju Sonawane was subjected to a polygraphic test from 22nd to 24th August, 2007 at New Delhi and the test has revealed deceptive responses on all critical questions asked to him relating to the murder of V.G. Patil. With the progress of the investigation subsequently, a report under section 173 had been filed by CBI also taking leave of the court under section 173(8) to file an additional chargesheet or to produce additional evidence at a subsequent stage. 27. The panchnama dated 3rd October 2005, is prepared by the police and refers to the statement of accused No.2 Raju C Sonawane, who is stated to have made the said statement before the panchas regarding the crime. Under this panchnama, the said accused has shown different places to the police and stated that Raju Mali had taken him to these places wherein he had got in touch with Dr.Ulhas Patil and said that he was going to kill V.G. Patil and that he should get him released on bail soon. This 35 panchnama is allegedly signed by the police officer and the panchas and accused Raju C. Sonawane. According to CBI, it has investigated this aspect of the matter and was not able to find any cogent and reliable evidence to show the involvement of Dr. Ulhas Patil in the commission of the crime. Besides the fact that the alleged panchnama is stated to be a statement made by the accused while in police custody, it appears from the record that no recoveries admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were made by the investigating agency in furtherance of this statement. In fact, the statement itself refers to the showing of the building, etc. and nothing more. 28. These are the matters of evidence which need to be proved in accordance with law and their impact and evidentiary value have to be examined by the trial court of competent jurisdiction. 29. It has been contended before the court that the complete records of the Cell Phones indicate that there were conversations between the accused and the suspects prior to and immediately after the commission of the crime which had not been produced before the trial court or for that matter before this court. Some 36 averments, though not with any certainty or supported by document, were made in the affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Filing of selected mobile phone records, therefore, was contended to be a serious defect in investigation. The first Investigating Officer in his investigation had made the following comments. I say that after the occurrence of the incident the media was constantly flashing news that the political opponents of V.G. Patil (deceased) were responsible for the said murder and since the petitioner Rajani Patil had specifically expressed the names of G.N. Patil and Mahindra Singh Patil as the political opponents of her husband, hence, during the course of investigation I recorded the statements of G.N. Patil and Mahindra Singh Patil. However, since there were other political opponents of the deceased V.G. Patil who were Ulhas Patil, Ramesh Choudhary, Udaysingh Patil and Suresh Panchal, hence, the call record details of all these political opponents were called for. 30. These notings were heavily relied upon by the petitioner to challenge the veracity and bonafides of the CBI in conducting the investigation. The records which were produced before the court did not support this contention of petitioner as, according to CBI, the Cell Phone records of various suspects did not show any link or evidence to connect the suspects with the commission of crime. The court had directed production of complete records which had been 37 taken into custody by CBI, CID (Crime) and by the local police which were produced. The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the records produced which include the police files and diary entries should be permitted to be inspected and in fact, copies should be directed to be given to the petitioner before this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we had not permitted inspection of police files by the petitioner or the other accused at this stage of the proceedings. In Director, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Niyamadevi,10 the Supreme Court while referring to the police files observed that very limited use can be made of the statements made to the police and in the police diaries and the court should not disclose material contained in police diaries and statements recorded during investigation. The Supreme Court held that during investigation, the High Court should have refrained from disclosing in its order material contained in those diaries and statements especially when the investigation in the case was in progress. The Supreme Court held that the observations made by the High Court amounted to an 10 1995(3) SCC 601 38 interference in the investigation at a premature stage. In the present case, substantial investigation has been concluded, and a chargesheet/supplementary chargesheets have been filed. The CBI has filed the extract of the Cell Phone records before the trial court alongwith the chargesheet while it has produced the complete original Cell Phone records of various concerned persons before this court. From the record, it appears that Cell Phone numbers of the parties are as under: 9370627561, 9423187054, 9370003094, 9850484348, 9423188802, 9370003849 32. The learned Additional Solicitor General emphasized that despite this, CBI had taken steps to reexamine the entire material in the light of the records and the statements of the witnesses and as already noticed, it has not been able to find any cogent or relevant evidence to file a charge sheet making the suspects as accused. It is material to refer to the relevant part of the reply filed by Shri R.S. Panwar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai to the affidavit filed by the petitioner: 41. Available evidence does not show conference calls between G.N. Patil, Narkhede and Lokhande. 39 This fact has been confirmed by the Nodal officer of Idea Cellular Limited, who has informed that Mobile No.9850484348 (which was registered in the name of Gajendra Singh B. Sisodia and was being used by G.N. Patil) did not have the call conferencing feature during September, 2005, and as such, the cellular number cannot make conference calls. He has also clarified that by observing the CDR, it cannot be stated if the calls wee conference calls. Call Detail Rcords of the phone numbers 9320003849 and 9423187054 are also not available with the concerned service providers. BSNL has also informed that since the CDR for the mobile number 9423187054 is not available, whether the subscriber made any conference calls or not cannot be verified. 42. The Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited, has informed that Mobile No.9850484348, which was registered in the name of Gajendra Singh and was being used by G.N. Patil did not have the call conferencing feature during September, 2005 and as such, the cellular number cannot make conference calls. 43. Regarding para number 39 of the affidavit of the petitioner, I say that this averment of the petitioner is factually not correct to the extent that missed calls are traceable. In fact missed calls on mobiles cannot be traced. As regards the conference call from the phone of G.N. Patil to Narkhede and Lokhande at 9.23 am., this submissin is also factually not correct, as has been stated in the preceding paragraphs. In fact Damodar Lokhande has made a call at 9.23.11 to G.N. Patil and then again 2 seconds later at 9.23.13. Dr. G.N. Patil has not made any call to Damodar Lokhande or Leeladhar Narkhede. 33. We have examined the record and found that not even a single call had been made from the Cell Phone of the 40 accused/deceased accused to these two suspects at the time of or proximate to the time of the commission of the crime. We do not propose to discuss the merits of the evidence on record as it will fall in the domain and jurisdiction of the trial court where the trial has already commenced. We have referred to the factual matrix of the case and noticed relevant records only for the purposes of examining the fairness or otherwise of the investigation conducted by the CBI. 34. In the last report dated 12th January, 2009 submitted on behalf of the CBI, it has also been noticed that during the investigation certain averments made in the Writ Petition and letters etc. were not found to be factually correct in as much as no primary Ashram Shala was opened by Government of Maharashtra in District – Jalgaon during the tenure of G.N. Patil, when he was District Congress President. The 7th Secondary Ashram Shala was sanctioned by Maharashtra Government in the year 2003 without recommendation of any political person and only on merit. There it has been submitted that there appeared to be no animosity between Shri G.N. Patil, V.G. Patil and Ulhas Patil, as even the children of Shri V.G. Patil were studying in the school of the suspect and there 41 were no quarrels between them though they belonged to rival factions of the same party. 35. During the course of argument, reliance was also placed on behalf of the Petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors,11 to contend that there has to be a fair investigation and the jurisdiction of the Court to have control over the investigation is beyond any controversy. This proposition of law cannot be disputed and in fact this principle has been followed in this proceeding. But on facts, in that case, the investigation had shown involvement of suspects and all authorities except the Director of Prosecution and Senior Prosecutor had come to the conclusion that the chargesheet as contemplated under the law should be filed. The Supreme Court while referring to various facets of investigation in that case finally directed the CBI to place material evidence collected by the Investigating Team along with the report of the Superintendent of Police before the concerned Special Court Juge, who would decide the matter in accordance with law. 36. In the present case earlier, a chargesheet was filed and after 11 2007 AIR SCW 1025 42 further investigation under the orders of the Court, a supplementary chargesheet against two accused was filed and still investigation is going on and leave under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained. We of course, propose to issue certain directions in the present case shortly hereafter. 37. Another question that was raised was that the petitioner should be given copies of the statements, confessional or otherwise and reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Monica Susairaj v. The State of Maharashtra through CID, UnitVIII, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2008 decided on 14th October, 2008, where the Court stated the principle as under: 35. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we hold as under : A) There is no prohibition in law to supply a copy or a certified copy of a confessional statement of an accused, to the accused, at any stage before filing of charge sheet; (B) However, the accused has no legal right to seek a copy or a certified copy of his/her confessional statement at any stage before filing of the charge sheet; C) It is entirely within the discretion of the investigating agency or prosecution as to whether to 43 supply and/or permit supply of copy of a confessional statement to an accused before filing of charge sheet. If the investigating agency is of the view that such a supply of copy at such stage to an accused is not going to adversely affect its investigation, it will be open for the investigating agency to supply and/or permit supply of such a copy at such a stage to the accused. However if the investigating agency is of the view that such a supply of copy at such stage to an accused is going to adversely affect its investigation, it will be open for the investigating agency not to supply and/or not to permit supply of such a copy at such a stage to the accused. In such an eventuality such a copy shall not be supplied to the accused at such a stage. The discretion of the investigating agency or the prosecution in the aforesaid limited regard is not justiciable; D) In case, even before filing a chargesheet, if the media gets an access to a confessional statement of an accused or even without getting such an access reports incorrectly anything as a part of confessional statement made by an accused, which results into character assassination of an accused (who till conviction is presumed to be innocent in law), it is bounden duty of the investigating agency to issue appropriate clarification to the media and it is the corresponding duty of the media to clarify the position at least to the extent that what was reported by the media to be a confessional statement of an accused is not correct. 38. From a reading of the above judgment, it is clear that documents which have been filed in the Court, are accessible to every person including the accused, prosecution and the Complainant. The Investigating Agency has a discretion, whether 44 or not to supply a copy of the confessional statement before the filing of a chargesheet. The CBI in the present case has supplied the documents which have been filed before the Court along with the report. The documents which are not part of the record have not been supplied by the CBI in the larger public interest. We have already dealt with this aspect by referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Niyamadevis case (supra). Yet, this controversy can well be examined by the learned Trial Judge who has to appreciate the case of the prosecution in its entirety and has to examine all aspects of the case including whether any person who is a suspect and/or is involved in the commission of crime ought to have been mentioned and impleaded in Column 10 of the chargesheet. It will not be appropriate for this court at this juncture to examine the culpability of the suspects to that extent particularly when the chargesheet before the court of competent jurisdiction has been filed and when the recording of evidence is yet to commence. Thus, in the facts of the present case, we feel it appropriate to leave these questions for determination by the court of competent jurisdiction. The provisions of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code are wide enough to clothe the Trial court with ample powers to summon persons who need to be tried together 45 with the accused for their involvement in the commission of the crime. 39. We have to keep in mind the caution spelt out by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma,12 where the Supreme Court said that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not be used for appreciating documents and evidence placed before it as it may amount to a pretrial of disputed questions. The appreciation of evidence is the function of the trial court and should normally be left to that court. The Court observed as under: 68. Another crucial question is whether the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would interfere and quash the chargesheet. The High Court found that the documents relied on by the respondents/accused were not denied by the State by filing the counteraffidavit. Therefore, they must be deemed to have been admitted. On that premise the High Court found that no prima facie case was made out on merits and chances of ultimate conviction is bleak. The court is not passive spectator in the drama of illegalities and injustice. The inherent power of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permitted to be resorted to. When the documents relied on by the respondents demonstrate that no prima facie offence is made out on the face value of those materials, then the criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue and so it should be quashed, and in such a situation and circumstances 12 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 46 the petitioners who had got a right under the Constitution for the protection of their liberty have rightly approached this Court and this Court in these circumstances has no option but to grant the relief by quashing the FIR and both the chargesheets. Accordingly it quashed them. If this decision is upheld, in my considered view startling and disastrous consequence would ensue. Quashing the chargesheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal court amounts to killing a stillborn child. Till the criminal court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground that alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against chargesheet and considering the matter on merit in the guise of prima facie evidence to stand an accused for trial amounts to pretrial of a criminal trial under Article 226 and 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditious trial of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petitions would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained. As was rightly done by Rajasthan High Court in this case at the instance of the directors of the company, wisdom lies to keep the hands back and relegate the accused to pursue the remedy under the Code. In several cases this Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the sole ground of delay. In a case FIR filed in 1954 for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was challenged in the Allahabad High Court. It was deliberately kept pending in the High Court and in this Court till 1990. The accusation was violation of law by named persons in the name of nonexisting firm. The FIR was quashed in the year 1990 by another Bench of which I was a member solely on the ground of delay. He achieved his object of avoiding punishment. This 47 would show that an accused with a view to delay the trial, resorts to writ proceedings, raises several contentions including one on merit as vehemently persisted by Sri Jain to consider this case on merits and have the proceedings kept pending. The result would be that the people would lose faith in the efficacy of rule of law. Documents relied on by the respondents are subject to proof at the trial and relevancy. If proved to be true and relevant then they may serve as a defence for the respondents at the trial. The State quite legitimately and in my view rightly did not choose to file the counteraffidavit denying or contradicting the version of the respondents, in those documents. The commission of offence cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. The High Court has taken short course in annihilating the still born prosecution by going into the merits on the plea of proof of prima facie case and adverted to those facts and gave findings on merits. Grossest error of law has been committed by the High Court in making pretrial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. After the chargesheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the chargesheets and the first information report. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider all the decisions dealing with the scope of the power of the High Court either under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the first information report. 40. A similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries,13 where the court held that it is right to point out that the High Courts will be careful to be extremely circumspect in granting these 13 1979(4) SCC 22 48 reliefs especially during the pendency of criminal investigation. The Supreme Court observed that investigation of a criminal offence is a very sensitive phase. The law has undoubtedly developed thereafter but the jurisdiction under Article 226 has not been so expanded to the extent that the court in exercise of its discretionary power would assume functions which squarely fall within the domain of the court dealing with the trial, unless rare and exceptional circumstances are made out which exfacie show that the investigation is so unfair, unjust or malafide that it could have the effect of completely prejudicing the trial to the disadvantage of the affected parties. There are certain matters which need to be explained by CBI particularly in regard to the statement of accused. Thus, it would be obligatory for CBI to place before the Trial court the entire material which would have effect on a just and fair decision of the case in bringing out the truth. 41. In various reports as well as the affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI, a definite stand has been taken before us that it has reexamined the entire matter including the doubt reflected in the investigation made by Inspector Ghuge. Nothing incriminating has come to the notice of CBI and furthermore, the affidavit filed by 49 Inspector Ghuge before this court supports the case of the CBI. As already noticed, it is not for this court to examine, either way, the merits and effect of the evidence gathered in the investigation file and/or the evidence produced with the chargesheet under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 42. There is a fine distinction in law between a suspect and an accused. A suspect is a person against whom evidence and circumstances point towards the likelihood of a commission of an offence. An accused is a person against whom the investigating agency has sufficient material to show, at least prima facie, that he is involved in the crime and has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC. The Wednesbury principle has often been applied by courts in civil and/or writ jurisprudence. In HolgateMohammed v. Duke,14 the House of Lords considered various aspects of criminal investigation and tested them on the touchstone of the Wednesbury principle. It was held thus......... Lord Green M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B.223, that have become too familiar to call for repetitious citation. The Wednesbury principles, as they are usually referred to, are applicable to determining the lawfulness of the 14 (1984) 1 A,C, 437 50 exercise of the statutory discretion of a constable under section 2(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, not only in proceedings for judicial review but also for the purpose of founding a cause of action at common law for damages for that species of trespass to the person known as false imprisonment, for which the action in the instant case is brought. The first of the Wednesbury principles is that the discretion must be exercised in good faith. The judge in the county court expressly found that Detective Constable offin in effecting the initial arrest acted in good faith. He thought that he was making a proper use of his power of arrest. So his exercise of that power by arresting Mrs. HolgateMohammed was lawful, unless it can be shown to have been unreasonable under Wednesbury principles, of which the principle that is germane to the instant case is: He [sc. the exerciser of the discretion] must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. As Lord Devlin, speaking for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942, 948, said: Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking: `I suspect but I cannot prove. Suspicion arises at or near the startingpoint of an investigation of which the obtaining of prima facie proof is the end. When such proof has been obtained, the police case is complete; it is ready for trial and passes on to its next stage.... i.e. bringing the suspect before a magistrates court upon a charge of a criminal offence. The other side of the same coin is where the investigation, although diligently pursued, fails to produce prima facie proof which, as Lord Devlin in the same case also pointed out (p.949), must be in the form of evidence that 51 would be admissible in a court of law. When the police have reached the conclusion that prima facie proof of the arrested persons guilt is unlikely to be discovered by further inquiries of him or of other potential witnesses, it is their duty to release him from custody unconditionally: Wiltshire v. Barrett [1966] 1 Q.B. 312. 43. In Indian Law as in the U.K. the power to investigate crime is statutory. A notified officer is entitled to investigate an offence in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code read with the Police Act or the Manual, as the case may. The exercise of statutory power has to be lawful and free of malice or unfairness. The power must be exercised in good faith, not only at the time of examining a suspect but while taking a final view for sending the accused for trial. This power to investigate should continue during the entire investigation and even during trial and that is the precise reason why the court of competent jurisdiction is vested with a power as contemplated in sections 173(8) and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to practically reexamine the entire case of the prosecution based on and with reference to the evidence relied upon by the Investigating Agency which is collected even after the commencement of trial. 52 44. There are some facets of this case which require some scrutiny by the Court but cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and which can be appropriately examined by the Court of competent jurisdiction where the trial is pending.

                      45. Having discussed various aspects of this case and the rival contentions raised before us, we now proceed to record the order indicating our conclusions as well as the directions which need to be issued in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the larger interests of the criminal justice delivery system :1. We hold that the exercise of monitoring the investigation and the power vested in the High Court to issue a writ of continuing mandamus would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the investigation is so very unjust and unfair and is in unlawful exercise of statutory discretion, the court could interfere and monitor the investigation even after a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction; 53 2. On the facts of the present case, we are unable to hold that the investigation of the case by CBI has been unjust and unfair or that the statutory discretion has been exercised by the investigating agency with malice, favouritism or mala fide so as to invite the intervention of this Court under the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the pendency of the trial before the competent Court; 3. Certain documents/affidavits have been produced before this Court, and probably for the first time, on which reliance was placed by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing of the Petition. We direct CBI to examine all such records and submit its report to the Trial Court within one month from the date of the pronouncement of this order. The CBI shall also file before the Trial Court all documents and evidence which it intends to rely upon or to refer during the course of the trial; 54 4. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner, Applicant and Intervenors to move the Trial Court for any relief or such prayer as may be permissible to them in accordance with law. The applications, if any, filed by them may be dealt with and disposed of by the Trial Court as expeditiously as possible; 5. The Trial Court is free to pass any orders in furtherance to the power vested in it under Section 173(8) read with Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; 6. The interim orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court staying further proceedings in the trial shall continue for a period of one month from today; 7. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties, including the Petitioner, the accused and the investigating agency. The Trial 55 Court dealing with the case would pass any orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The petition shall stand disposed of in these terms.

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note 2.4.2014- Judgement-- Nitish Katara Murder Case- After hearing Mr. Ram Jethmalani Senior Counsel for Vishal Yadav, Mr. U.R Lalit Senior Counsel for Vikas Yadav and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Kapoor learned counsel for Sukhdev Appellant the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Dismissed all the appeals.   Read Judgement

Court Guwahati High Court
Head Note 06 Nov-2013-"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946."--GUWAHATI HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Conclusion: "We have held that the Delhi Legislative Assembly did not have the legislative competence to amend the Court Fees Act,1870. We have also held that the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 adversely impacts the Part-III rights and results in violation of Article 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India….   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 13 sept.2013-"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments.."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 13/9/2013: Held,"The impugned judgment of the trial Court has failed to notice and take into account the probabilities, material contradictions and the embellishments that have been highlighted above and therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and is liable to be reversed." - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 3/9/2013: Hostility of witnesses - Hon'ble Court took serious note-Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 2 Sept.2013- The earlier rejections of the bail prayer of the appellant were without following the required mandatory provisions.-All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 2 Aug.2013-"Two of non-fatal injuries on deceased were simple in nature which also is clear indication that there was no unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder"   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."- Allahabad High Court relied upon Apex Court's judgement.-2.8.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Directions issued,"whenever there is slightest suspicion the police should not hesitate in registering the crime also under section 376 IPC, and not show the crime only as a murder"-Allahbad High Court. Dated 9.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Death reference rejected"-Allahabad High Court.Dated8.7.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Cherge not framed-Effect analysed"-Allahabad High Court. Dated 3.5.2013   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Without establishing genuiness, photo can not be admitted in secondary evidence : Allahabad High Court- Dated 23/2/2012.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Police not to arrest accused persons for offences punishable upto imprisionment upto 7 years - provisions of 41(1)b,41A discussed and directions issued - Allahabad High Court - Dated 11.10.2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Applicability of Section 40 to 44 Evidence Act- "A Division Bench of this Court in Km. Rinki vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (3) JIC 267 (All.) (D.B.) and Hon'ble Single Judge in Raj Dularey Shukla v. State, 2006 (1) JIC 887 (All.) also propounded the same principle and held that if some of the accused are acquitted in a trial separately held, the other accused is not entitled to the benefit of acquittal order and his case is to be decided separately on the basis of the evidence adduced during his trial. 13. The aforesaid decisions have settled the legal position that judgments of courts of justice may be relevant under any of the provisions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. In other words, if any judgment, order or decree of a court does not fulfill requirements of any of the aforesaid sections, it has no relevancy and must be held to be irrelevant. It is also well settled that every trial has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial itself, therefore, the previous judgment of acquittal rendered in a trial, if it is not relevant under any of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act has no relevancy in the subsequent trial being held against co-accused and he can not be permitted to claim any advantage of such judgment, which is merely an opinion of the judge on the basis of the evidence led in the previous trial. The only relevancy of such judgment is to decide the question of applicability of bar to the subsequent trial under section 300 of the Code as section 40 of the Evidence Act makes the previous judgment relevant only for such purposes and not otherwise. In such matters, sections 41 to 44 of the Evidence Act also have no application. In this view of the matter the proceeding of the session trial being held against the petitioners can not be quashed on the basis of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of co-accused persons."- Allahabad High Court - Dated 1 9/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Interiem Bail pending final disposal of Bail u/s 389 Cr.P.C. - "Otherwise also General Rules (Criminal), applicable to lower courts and High Court Rules, applicable to high court, both provide for giving of notice of the bail application to the public prosecutor and as a well ingrained practise hearing of public prosecutor in matter of consideration of bail applications has become the rule of law. Consequently the law relating to the procedure to be followed in matters of consideration of bail applications prior to conviction holds good for post-conviction bail applications also. In this respect a full bench of our court in Smt.Amarawati's case(Supra) has held that interim bail pending consideration of final bail is permissible. It has been held therein as under- "40. We again make it clear that the learned Sessions Judge in his discretion can hear and decide the bail application under Section 439 on the same day of its filing provided notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, or he may not choose to do so. This is entirely a matter in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge. There may also be cases where the learned Sessions Judge on the material available before him may decide to grant interim bail as he may feel that while he has sufficient material for giving interim bail he required further material for grant of final bail. In such cases also he can in his discretion, grant interim bail and he can hear the bail application finally after a few days. All these are matters which should ordinarily be left to his discretion." The aforesaid opinion by this court got it's approval by the apex court inLal kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others: (2009) SCC 437 wherein it has been held by the apex court as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Amarawati v. State of U.P. in which a seven-Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. We fully agree with the view of the High Court in Amarawati case and we direct that the said decision be followed by all courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar Case. Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar Case." Thus from the above discussion the law has been crystallised that pending consideration of final bail prayer an accused can be granted interim bail and hence the answer to the mooted question is that the proviso to section 389 of the Code does put an embargo nor does it curtails power of appellate court to grant interim bail. A Proviso cannot take away right conferred by parent provision and has to be read down to harmonise it with the parent section. On this aspect support can be had from apex court decision in Dadu alias Tulsidas(Supra) wherein Apex Court has observed as under:- "Providing a right of appeal but totally disarming the Court from granting interim relief in the form of suspension of sentence would be unjust, unfair and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution particularly when no mechanism is provided for early disposal of the appeal. The pendency of criminal litigation and the experience in dealing with pending matters indicate no possibility of early hearing of the appeal and its disposal on merits at least in many High Courts. As the present is not the occasion to dilate on the causes for such delay, we restrain ourselves from that exercise. In this view of the matter, the appellate powers of the Court cannot be denuded by Executive or judicial process".- Allahabad High Court - Dated 14/09/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Non Compliance of Section 8(c),42(1)(2),50,57 N.D.P.S.Act and 100,165,313 Cr.P.C.- Its effect - Fatal to Prosecution.
Case Laws Discussed:
1.State of Rajasthan versus Shanti: AIR 2010 SC 43
2.Sarju versus State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 3214
3.Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2009 (10) SCALE 255]
4.Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
[(2000) 2 SCC 513]
5. Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 692]
6.Dilip versus Sate of M.P. :AIR 2007 SC 369
7.State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299]
8.State of West Bengal Versus Babu Chakraborty : AIR 2004 SC 4324
9.State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299
10.State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172,Constitution Bench
11.Union Of India Versus Shah Alam and others : AIR 2010 SC 1785
12.Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2006 AIR SCW 6246)
13.State of Punjab versus Hari Singh: AIR 2010 SC 1966
14.Avtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2002 (7) SCC 419)
15.Ganesh Gogoi versus State of Assam : AIR 2009 SC 2955
16.Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others - (2000) 8 SCC 740
17.Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar: AIR 2009 SC (Suppl) 1439 - Allahabad High Court.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note C.B.I.directed to investigate CMO`s Murders - Allahabad High Court - Dated 29/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Dr. Sachan`s Murder Case - Investigation ordered to be conducted by C.B.I.- Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court-Dated 14/07/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Notification No. (S.I.2942 [E]) Dated 18.11.2009 issued by the Government of India, providing that not only the weight of Heroin found on analysis but the entire substance is to be taken into account while deciding the quantity -

Held "This notification can not be applied retospectively and has no aplication in instant case"-
Bail Allowed.-Allahabad High Court - Dated 30/05/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note "Exhibits Ka 15 and 16 have been got proved and exhibited by the prosecution itself and therefore it can not now resile from it`s contents." - Documents produced by Prosecution binding on them - Alladabad High Court - Dated 25/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Bail to Juvenile : "Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right"-Section 12 analysed - Allahabad High Court - Dated 24.05.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Directions to CBI to investigate any other offence-" The direction to CBI to investigate "any other offence" is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person`s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21"- Allahabad High Court- Dated 20/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note False Case against Civil Judge J.D.,Nazibabad by U.P. Police in connivance with Administration - " We are constrained to observe that it is indeed a serious matter that even a judicial officer has not been spared and every effort has been made to browbeat him by the administration.":Allahabad High Court-Dated 17/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Allahabad High Court directs Central and U.P.Govt.to amend sec. 354 I.P.C.triable by court of sessions and non-bailable:"Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such crimes of sexual violence in the State of U.P., in Delhi and in other places we think that it is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue, and consider imposing stringent laws for putting a check on such crimes of sexual violence against women and children. We therefore recommend that the State of U.P. and the Union of India consider amending the provisions of section 354 IPC and the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing a higher sentence for the offence and for making it non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session. Copy of this order may be forwarded to the Law Commissions, of U.P and the Centre, and also to the Law( Secretary) U.P. and the Union of India within 15 days for appropriate action and recommendations." - Allahabad High Court - Dated 09/05/2011.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note If the trial of a juvenile offender has already commenced, the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act will have applicability.
Perusal of the record in the instant revision indicates that the trial was pending since last seven years. The trial is at the fag-end as the entire evidences of the prosecution and the accused have already been over. It is at this stage of the fag-end of the trial that the revisionist has prayed vide Paper No. 275 Kha to send his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, which prayer has been refused by impugned order dated 8.2.2011.
It seems that only to delay the trial and lingering on the proceedings of a murder and an attempt to murder case, the said application was filed by the revisionist. When the evidences were being led and the accused were cross examining the witnesses, no grievance was raised by the revisionist for sending his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. Much of the water has already been flown and it is too late in the day for the revisionist to rue that his matter has not been transferred to juvenile Justice Board. Opinion of the trial Judge as is recorded in the impugned order dated 8.2.2011, cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
This revision being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed:Allahabad High Court.Dated 30/03/2011.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Transfer Petition -"The sessions trial is about to conclude. Most of the arguments have been heard by Mr. Ramashraya Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, at this juncture, transfer of the case would not only be improper but would also result in causing delay in the disposal of the case. It is true that the presiding officer has closed the arguments and required the accused to file written arguments but still it is open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to permit the accused to make oral submissions also. It is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed accordingly if any request for oral submission is made from the accused persons or their counsel, whose arguments (oral submissions) have not been heard. ... For the reasons discussed above, the transfer application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed" : Allahabad High Court. ________________________________________   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Appeal against conviction under 307 IPC-Medical Report cooked up-Investigation not fair-313 Cr.PC not complied with-appeal allowed-conviction set aside.- Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note There was a time gap of about three hours between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen together. Even otherwise the last seen evidence has to be connected with some other corroboration.
... PW14 had only seen the deceased along with the accused, merely this evidence was not sufficient to prove the circumstance of last seen.
18. Therefore, we discard the testimony of PW14 as we have found serious improbability in the version of the last seen evidence
It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to prove all the incriminating circumstances beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the circumstances so proved should complete the chain of events linking the accused with commission of the crime. There should not be left any chinks in such a chain and no circumstance should be of such a nature which could lead to any inference of innocence of the accused. All circumstances so alleged and proved must show the involvement of the accused in the crime.
28. It is settled law that if the motive which is set out by the prosecution is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt the other incriminating circumstantial evidence may lose its importance and it may lead the court to draw an inference that perhaps the appellant was not involved in this crime.
Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted:Delhi High Court-MANMOHAN SINGH, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code: No person can be added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after closer of the case:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Cognizance of offence-Passing of the summoning order without obtaining relevant materials in support of the information,not proper. Summoning order quashed:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Chhattisgarh High Court
Head Note Hostile Witness- Binding on prosecution- CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED-10 FEB 2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The distinction between the nature of burden that rests on an accused under Section 105, Evidence Act to establish a plea of self-defence and the one cast on the prosecution by Section 101 to prove its case is overlooked-The appellant has been able to establish a preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea of private defence-The appeal is allowed. --DELHI HIGH COURT-JUDGEMENT DATED- 19.1.2011   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note NO MOTIVE-RECOVERY NOT FREE DOUBTS-CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCE NOT COMPLETE-LAST SEEN DOUBTED-APPEAL ALLOWED- DELHI HIGH COURT-DATED 04.01.2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 156(3)Cr.pc-Interlocutory Order-no criminal revision will lie against the orders passed by the Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C- ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-FULL BENCH-DATED 20 DEC 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note FIR -Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR - Allahabad High Court- Dated 10/12/2010   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note FIR-to be displayed on Delhi Police website- ---Delhi High Court passes directions : (A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours. (C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours of lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances. (E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Delhi Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. A decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also be duly communicated to the Area magistrate. (F) The word =sensitive‘ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. (G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person. (H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee within eight weeks from today. (I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application. (J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Delhi Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note First Information Report- Sec 306/504/120B IPC- FIR-Arrest of the petitioners stayed as a consequence of FIR-Order-Allahabad High Court, Dated-29-11-2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note A word used at different place in the Act or Rule may have different meaning according to its context--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-- Order Dated - 26/10/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench -Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal,Justice D V Sharma .J,J,J
Head Note AYODHYA RAM JANM BHOOMI-BABRI MASZID TITLE CASE--held--Ram Lala Idol not to be removed- Sunni Wakf Board suit dismissed.-- 1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram? The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. 2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom? The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. 3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple? The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. 4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949? The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949. 2 5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred? O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time. 6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard? It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.......Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note BAIL ALLOWED-Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED 23rd SEPTEMBER 2010   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note No opportunity is required to be given if selection is made on the basis of a forged marksheet--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order Dated - 25/8/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Witness Protection : Witness protection programme is an important aspect of criminal justice system: without it, no reforms are possible. If witnesses are afraid to come forward then irrespective of any measures justice cannot be administered. This case is a pointer - Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note There was no pre-meditation or pre-plan on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, and the occurrence had taken place when the deceased, with another had entered the field of the appellant and engaged himself in an altercation with the appellant when the appellant had refused to part with bitterguard. Having regard to the attending circumstances in which the incident had taken place, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC."   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Dying declaration before police is admissible u/s 162 (2) CrPC.--ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT--Judgment/Order - Judgment/Order Dated - 16/4/2010 at Allahabad.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Intention to Cause Death : He who inflicts 13 stab wounds on the vital part of the body of a human being using a dagger having a blade of 21 cms length would certainly be attributed with the intention to cause the death of the victim : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of body and cycle of deceased from the appellant-witnesses reliable-Conviction Maintained : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Period of Limitation : The period of limitation would start only from the date when ultimately, it was held by the competent Court that the criminal prosecution was a false prosecution. It is well-know maxim of law that an appeal/ revision is continuity of the criminal trial and criminal trial finally comes to an end when the last Court i.e. the Supreme Court, give its verdict: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder : Accused causing death by his lisence weapon in marriage ceremony-convicted u/s 304II IPC for imprisionment of eight months already undergone and pay 3.5 lacs to dependant-2005 (116) DLT 634 Nehru Jain Vs. State NCT of Delhi Followed : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Anticipatory Bail : Anticipatory Bail can not be denied merely on the ground that charge-sheet has been filed or the court has taken the cognizance- bail allowed- Supreme Court Followed : Delhi High Court- 26/02/2010.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Circumstantial Evidence : : Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Calcutta High Court
Head Note Delay in lodging FIR in Rape case : i) When there was considerable delay and the delay was not properly explained benefit must go to the defence. ii) A rape victim may think seriously before lodging complaint to the police as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. Hence, delay might be possible in the case of a like nature. iii) If the complainant was victim and was injured in the incident delay in lodging the complaint would not be fatal : Calcutta High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Case of circumstantial evidence : Whether the circumstances against the appellant are established and lead only to his guilt or not- all circumstances must be proved : Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Cancellation of Bail : In Mubarak Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: 2004 (2) SCC 362, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi:2005 (8) SCC 21, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan: 2004(7) SCC 528 it was observed that even when there is a prima facie apprehension of the likelihood of an attempt to derail the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses, the Court would be fully justified in cancelling the bail. Here as we have seen the eye witness, had actually turned hostile, and it was not only a case of an apprehension that an attempt would be made to tamper with the witnesses.Followed: Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Out of 17 general posts, 12 posts have been filled-up from the candidates belonging to the reserved category-on merit:Allahabad High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note ANTICIPATORY BAIL-Section 438 CR.P.C-Inconsistency in medical report-Bail Allowed- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-DATED-2OTH NOV 2009   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery Of Heroine:The recovery was made from the basement of building belonging to Mohd.Mobin Khan. It is also very strange that why would the applicant plant the recovered heroine and then would make a cool statement before officials that he himself had planted the heroinea:Allahabad High Court-Bail Granted   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery of 20 Kg. Charas- Bail Refused-Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 450 , Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 321,State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350: 2005 (1) EFR 2008 Discussed : Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note For the purposes of deduction under Chapter VIA, the gross total income has to be computed inter alia by deducting the deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Act, including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act, even though the assessee has computed the total income under Chapter IV by disclaiming the current depreciation : Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note chargesheet for the offence under section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act submitted by the Circle Officer concerned on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Sub-Inspector not valid   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The proximity of place of last seen vis-à-vis the place of murder having snapped in the instant case, we are of the opinion that in the facts of this case, it would be unsafe to conclude against the guilt of the appellant on the solitary circumstance of his seen in the company of the deceased in the house of the father of the deceased which house is at a distance of about 2 km from the place where the deceased: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Application of judicial mind:Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, has passed the impugned order ignoring all judicial discipline. She has not at all applied her judicial mind and had only referred some of the judgements of this court, which are contrary to the opinion of the apex court, rendered in many decisions. Judicial order should be passed by applying judicial mind. By this judgement, I severely criticise the conduct of Judicial Magistrate, II, Saharanpur and record my serious displeasure against her order for passing such type of illegal orders. Judicial Magistrate II Court No. 14, Saharanpur is warned for future and is cautioned to be careful in passing judicial orders. She should have thought of that rape not only causes physical injury to the victim, but it leave scare on mind for life long and implant the victim with such ignominy, which is worst than her death and I say no more. Though, I was inclined to refer this matter to Administrative Committee for taking action against Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 14 Saharanpur, but only for the reason that she is a young officer and have long career ahead, I refrain from such a stringent action:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note On granting bail by one judge to any accused, another judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the basis of parity :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Murder-single blow-intention to murder absent-partly allowed-convicted u/s 304 part 1-sentence of 7 years R.I. implanted: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Pre-arrest bail prayer refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Limitation- Complaint barred by-calculation of mandatory 15 days period for notice under Negotiable Instrument Act: Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 302 IPC- FIR anti-timed-informant presence doubtful-investigation tainted-conviction set aside 302 IPC:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note 304-B-Sentence of life imprisionment-Cause of death not known-Sentence reduced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Anticipatory Bail of Unit Manager of ICICI Company Deepak Kapila rejected : Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Transfer Matters:In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 531], Article 226 of the Constitution of India not to be invoked:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note The degree of proof required in departmental enquiries is that of a preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is now well settled through a series of decisions by Apex Court: Delhi High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Protection of life and liberty-petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of their parents.Proof of age and marriage certificated produced. Directions to SSP to look representation and take action: Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Apprehending - arrest and also harassment by the police and family members of petitioner- both major and married-Directions to SSP for proctection of life and liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Adult woman entitle to live independely and not to be detained in Nari Niketan because matter communally sensitive or parents unwilling to take her: Allahabad High Court [D.B.]   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note The exercise of monitoring the investigation and the power vested in the High Court to issue a writ of continuing mandamus would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the investigation is so very unjust and unfair and is in unlawful exercise of statutory discretion, the court could interfere and monitor the investigation even after a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction: Bombay High Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note All the prosecution witnesses have been examined U/S 498-A,406,304-B,34 IPC, no ground for grant of bail made out.Bail refused:Punjab & Haryana High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note Dowery Death:The antemortem injuries establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. There was a demand for Rs.40,000/- which the deceased’s father could not fulfill. Circumstances establish that the harassment was in connection with dowry demand. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act must, therefore, arise. The appellant’s failure to explain how the deceased received ante-mortem injuries provide an important link in the chain of circumstances. Conviction affirmed: Bombay High Court.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Recovery could not be initiated against the petitioner under the statutory provisions of assessment on the ground of theft of electricity, until petitioner s objection is decided, as per Cl.8.1 Electricity Supply Code ,2005 : ALL.H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Only after the declaration of the result the petitioner has now started claiming that her candidature should be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates. This change cannot be permitted at such a belated stage.Petition dismissed: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Small or commercial quantity of Narcotic Drug is to be determined on the basis of actual contents in such drug - percentage of heroin in the recovered contraband was found 31.25%, meaning thereby that actual weight of heroin in the recovered contraband comes 93.75 gm, which is below commercial quantity as per entry 56 of Notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by Central Government -Bail granted: All. H.C.   Read Judgement

Court Delhi High Court
Head Note Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex ....Delhi High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Second bail application on the same grounds is not maintainable : Allahabad High Court.-• Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. 1998(37) ACC 287, Gama and another v. State of U.P. 1986 (23) ACC 339, • State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao 1989(26) ACC 503(SC), • Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978 Cr. L. J. 651 (SC), • Shahzad Hasan Khan V. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan 1987(24) ACC 425(SC) , • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another 2005(51) ACC 727 (SC). , • Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115[SC]- Discussed.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note State Government shall immediately take steps to train its all Executive Magistrates so that they understand as to how the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be applied : Bombay HIgh Court   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note In Petition to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar ordered to take an appropriate action on the petition: Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Whether the principle of parity can be the sole ground for granting Bail ? No :Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Revision against summoning order maintainable and not barred under sub section (2) of section 397 Cr.P.C.;Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.: Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Long incaricuration in jail during trail is not perse illegal and would not be voilative of article 21 of constitution of India.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Notice to the prospective accused is not required to be issued prior to passing the order under section 319 Cr.P.C.:Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Merely ownership of the weapon did not makes out a case under Section 307 IPC and in any event Section 27 has no application.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Transfer Aplication- Supereme Court transfered the case to faimily court Banglore, where husband and wife last resided-Divorce petiton.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Death sentence in case of rape and murder of 10 years girl reduced to life inprisionment, case does not fall rare of rarest. Bachan Singh case followed.: SUPEREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Evidence did not attribute any overt act to the appellant. The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract aplicability of section 34 IPC, accused acquitted : supreme court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note The mere fact that one of the members of the Board or the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police or the Panchayat has recommended release of the convict from jail, is by itself of no consequence. The recommendation is of the Board and not........:SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note SUB-BROKER CARRYING BUISNESS WITHOUT SEBI REGISTRATION EFFECT:POWERS OF TRIBUNAL IMPOSITION OF PENALTY -SCOPE OF: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Finding of trial judge regarding time of incident on the basis of stomach contents of deceased rejected,and high court view approved, conviction maintained: SUPREME COURT   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Section 302 read with 149 IPC:The role attributed was throwing bricks towards house of Aurangjeb, death was caused by gun shot,although accused did not caused fatal blow to deceased,but conviction maintained with help of 149 IPC.As,the acquitted accused were not mere onlookers, but they were members of unlawful assembly and they also had taken active part in the incident by throwing bricks thereby causing injuries to the injured Aurangzeb and Smt. Akbari.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Absence of direct evidence of complicity of accused-319 cr.p.c. not be invoked.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note An apprentice is not an employee : Supereme Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Vicarious Liability u/s 34 IPC -Bail can not be refused :Allahabad High Court,Hon. Shiv Charan,J. Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Banks Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles can only be done through legal means- Banks not to resort to use of muscle power for recovery of loans and persistently bothering borrower at odd hours   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Dyeing recorded by SHO in presence of doctor of hospital accepted by Supreme Court to base conviction- rules regarding recording of dyeing declaration by magistrate held merely procedural.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Division Bench referance answered in Neera Yadev case.----Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 Criminal Procedure Code,120-B IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Delay in FIR, Lack of names of witnesses at first instance, Statement to CRPF withheld by prosecution- all these stereo type arguments discarded, in the circumstances of the case.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note In appropriate cases, interim bail may be granted by subordinate courts pending disposal of bail applications.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Aggressor has no right of private defence. Active participation is not essential FOR applicability of section 149 IPC.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Mentioning the names of accused and witensses is not the requirement of law. In case of direct evidence, absence of motive looses significance.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST not be attracted in cases where the offence committed under IPC is punishable less than ten years imprisonment.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Interest is payable even if possession is taken prior to notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.   Read Judgement

Court Bombay High Court
Head Note Law laid down in Anant Vasantlal Sambre and Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni’s cases no more a good law to that extent.It is not a requirement under section 3 of the Atrocities Act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint: Bombay High Court-Full Bench   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Medical evidence inconsistent to oral eye witness account,Held"conviction u/s 302 IPC can not be maintained and altered to 326 IPC   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note ALL. H.C.: Existence of an arbitration agreement is a sine quo non for invoking the jurisdiction of the court u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note S.C.:Question of law not framed by high court, so case remmitted back.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note Separate conviction and sentence under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor is illegal--Allahabad High Court   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.;Magistrate having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence can not pass the order for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All. H.C.:The Magistrate can pass order for further investigation on the final report.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H,C.:Carrying the cow, bull or bullock within the State for slaughtering is no offence under Cow Slaughter Act   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All. H.C.:Second or subsequent bail application can be considered on new ground or change of law.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.:Participation of all the accused in criminal act by doing some overt act is not necessary to attract Section 34 of I.P.C.   Read Judgement

Court
Head Note All.H.C.:There is no parity in rejection of bail.   Read Judgement

Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Head Note Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 accepted and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 (Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and others versus State of Punjab) dismissed:Punjab & Haryana High Court   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Held"(1) The respondents shall not consider the applications submitted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22nd October, 2003 (Annexure-2) for the time being and keep the process of appointment in abeyance so far as the petitioners are concerned;
(2) Applications of the petitioners for renewal shall be considered first, as required under Para 7.08 of the L.R. Manual and to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order;
(3) While considering the applications for renewal, the findings of fact shall be recorded by the authority concerned as to whether initial appointment of the petitioners had been made in accordance with law and in case, answer is negative, the applications for renewal shall be rejected forthwith.
(4) In case, the applications of the petitioners or any of them is rejected and renewal is not made, the said vacancies shall be filled up by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Paras 7.03 and 7.06 of the L.R. Manual.
(5) The process shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today" : Allahabad High Court. Dated 14/11/2003.
  Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court
Head Note Held,"In State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Government or a public body represent public interests, and hence, there is an obligation on them to engage the most competent lawyers.
Time, has, therefore, come when this practice must stop so that highly competent lawyers of integrity and sound knowledge of law are appointed as Government Counsels and for this purpose we recommend to the State Government to consult Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court and suitably amend the L.R. Manual accordingly. Till that is done, ordinarily the recommendation of the District Judge, in the matter of appointment/renewal of the Government Counsels in the District Court in the State must ordinarily be accepted.": Allahabad High Court (DB)-Dated 1
  Read Judgement

Court Gujarat High Court
Head Note SECTION 18-EVIDENCE ACT- EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUGGESTION PUT IN CROSS EXAMINATION TO PROSECUTION WITNESS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL- NOT AN EVIDENCE--GUJARAT HIGH COURT   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Head Note Candidate is Called for Interview but not Selected.   Read Judgement

Court CAT
Head Note the applicant claiming that she was not called for interview despite possessing the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement published by the Commission and that the Commission can not shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher qualification and experience than those prescribed.   Read Judgement

Court Allahabad High Court - Vinod Prasad J.
Head Note Sentence and Compensation : Looking to the activity indulged into by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he does not deserve incarceration. How ever sentence has to be commensurate with the guilt of the accused. Judging from that angle it is detected that the illegal activity was carried out by the revisionist for a period of eighteen days. The maximum sentence, which has been provided under the Statute for offence under Section 294 IPC can extend to three months of imprisonment or with fine or with both. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the substantive sentence of the petitioner for two months R.I. is excessive and should be reduced and instead he should be implanted with heavy fine of Rs.30,000/- out of which compensation should be awarded to the the children for the agony suffered by them:Allahabad High Court - Dated 01/04/2011.   Read Judgement