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
 
Allahabad High Court

Judgement Dated: 17-May-2011

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.

Judgement:
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD



Reserved

Criminal Misc (Public Interest Litigation) Writ Petition No 21847 of 2010

Tabrez Ahmad Civil Judge (JD)..................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P and others...........................Respondents


Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
Hon. Shri Kant Tripathi, J.

(Delivered by Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.)

Present matter has its genesis in the report dated 30th Nov 2010 scripted by the District Judge shortlisting the events leading to registration of FIR against the petitioner. The report of the Distt Judge is accompanied with various papers including the application of the Petitioner.

The entire papers including application of the petitioner were placed before Hon. the Chief justice on which the Bench consisting of Hon. the Chief Justice and Hon. Vineet Saran, J. took suo motu notice vide order dated 1.12.2010 and directed the matter to be treated as Public Interest Litigation. The learned Standing counsel was also directed to file counter affidavit in the matter and in the meanwhile criminal proceeding launched against the petitioner pursuant to FIR dated 16.11.2010 was stayed till further orders by this Court. In the said order, the District Magistrate and Supdt of Police Bijnor were also directed to file affidavit.

On administrative side, it would appear, Hon. the Chief Justice passed the order dated 24.11.2010 for posting of the case before the Bench dealing with Criminal P.I.L. It is in this backdrop that the case has come up before us.

We have heard Sri S.G Hasnain learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the District Magistrate and Supdt of Police and perused the materials on record.

From a scrutiny of the papers on record, the sequence of events are thus. On 16.11.2010, in an accident, two boys riding bicycle were hit by a speeding Tanker and were crushed to death under the wheels of the offending vehicle. According to the copy of the complaint addressed to Supdt of Police, Bijnor bearing thumb impression of one Sunil, father of the deceased boys, on the fateful day at about 5.30 pm, the offending Tanker bearing Registration No UP 12 C 0927, hit the deceased who were on bicycle, in front of Chaudhary Restaurant in village Bhaguwala and one of the boys died instantaneously while the other breathed last on way to hospital. It is further mentioned that the accident was witnessed by a number of people including Farman, Sukhveer, Bijendra, who noted down the registration number of tanker on the spot. It is further mentioned that after hitting the deceased, the tanker sped away from the place of occurrence. It is further mentioned that at about 10 pm the complainant accompanied with other village people reached the police station for lodging the report. It is further mentioned in the report that the complainant at that time was much distraught and taking advantage of his distraught condition, someone obtained his thumb impression on a typed paper misrepresenting to him that it was a memorandum for handing over the bodies of the deceased to him. Thereafter, it is further mentioned, he got busy in the performance of funeral rites of the deceased and in that connection, he went to Haridwar. On return from Haridwar on 18.11.2010, when he went to the police station he was apprised that FIR had already been lodged. It is further mentioned that he had not given any written report at that time and he was giving the report now with the request that the police station concerned be directed to register the case forthwith on the basis of this written report. The complainant's report dated 18.11.2010 addressed to the Dy. Supdt of Police Najibabad was scribed by one Pankaj Kumar son of Jai Pal resident of village Shadipur. To the similar effect is the affidavit sworn in by Sunil addressed to the Superintendent of Police. The Distt Judge has also enclosed a copy of news report in which referring to the statement of C.O. Jairaj Singh, it is reported that the offending tanker involved in the accident was intercepted and that the Driver of Tanker namely Goldee had confessed to the accident in which two boys lost their lives.

The report submitted by the petitioner addressed to Registrar General of this Court mentions that in connection with a case in which the Distt Magistrate had showed disrespect to the Court, he had made a reference on 5.6.2010 to the High Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the Distt Magistrate. Citing second instance, it is mentioned that on 16.6.2010, one Hon Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court had paid a visit to Najibabad and despite prior information, the District Administration Bijnor neither extended any protocol nor permitted the Supdt of Police Bijnor to make requisite arrangement for the visiting Judge. Disgruntled with the arrangement, a communication was sent to Chief Secretary U.P by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The third instance cited by the petitioner is that on the above counts, the District Magistrate was annoyed so much so that he directed Supdt of Police to withdraw security personnel provided to the petitioner. Lastly it is submitted that the Distt Magistrate was on the look out for an opportunity to give befitting reply to the petitioner and in furtherance of his intention he was also conniving with local politicians and the accident in which FIR has been lodged against him, came as a handy tool to the Distt Magistrate who contrived and managed to lodge the FIR naming the petitioner with the active connivance of the local BSP politicians. The officer has also referred to the news report published in news paper Dainik Jagran which is to the effect that two adolescent boys were crushed under the wheels of a speeding Tanker near a curve of village Baghuwala and leaving a dozen people injured. The news report dated 17th Nov 2010 substantiates the report of the complainant that two persons riding the cycle were hit by the speeding tanker out of which one expired on the spot while the other succumbed to injuries on way to hospital. It is further mentioned in the news report that the police had intercepted the tanker. At 3 pm on 8.12.2010, when the case was again called out, the learned Additional Advocate General brought on record the affidavits sworn in by the District Magistrate Bijnor and Supdt. of Police in compliance with the order dated 1.12.2010. The District Magistrate also appeared in court in compliance of the order of the Court. The Additional Advocate General tried to defend the respondents and he repudiated any role of the District Magistrate in the matter. In his affidavit, the District Magistrate has denied the allegations that he had shown any disrespect to the Court and on this count he merely stated that he had replied to the show cause notice issued by the court at Najibabad. In connection with the allegation that requisite arrangement was not made on the visit of Hon. Alok Kumar Singh, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, he stated that he had issued instructions to the Supdt of Police and also to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Najibabad. He further stated that upon being called upon to explain by the State Govt, he had called for explanation of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the said Magistrate gave his explanation stating that Police Escort was provided which remained till the stay of his Lordship. He also enumerated other arrangements made in connection with the visit of Hon Judge as aforesaid. As regards withdrawal of security provided to the petitioner, it is stated that during Panchayat election, the security was withdrawn but it has been restored. He denied any role in the registration of the FIR. He merely stated that the FIR was lodged on the basis of report of one Sunil Kumar attended with the statement that he made a note that further action in the matter would be taken after appropriate permission from the District Judge. The deponent has also referred to the application and affidavit of one Babu in which he claimed himself to be one of the witnesses of occurrence. It is stated in the application that the petitioner was driving the Santro car and he hit the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. It would thus transpire that impliedly, the Distt Magistrate was propping up the case against the Judicial officer. It is also worth noticing at this stage that the aforesaid Babu claims himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence while the fact remains that in the application made by the complainant before the Supdt of Police, Babu has not been mentioned as one of the ocular witnesses. Even in the C.D prepared by Local TV Channel 200, mention of which shall be made in the later part of this order, no person of the name of Babu came forward and claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The affidavit filed by the Supdt of Police is reiteration of what is stated in the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate Bijnor. Another evidence on record of great significance is the C.D. This C.D is a recording of a local channel namely, "T.V. 200". This channel, it would appear, has recorded the version of local people at the site of accident. It brooks no dispute that the accident took place in front of Chaudhary Restaurant. One Kuljeet Singh son of Preetam Singh who claimed to be the owner of the said Restaurant, was the first person interviewed by the aforesaid Channel. He gave version to the aforesaid electronic media to the effect that at the time of accident, he was sitting at cash counter. He heard a loud noise upon which he was attracted to the site from where the noise emanated. He saw that a Tanker had crushed two cycle borne boys. While aforesaid Kuljeet Singh was being interviewed, he was seen flanked by a sub inspector. He also stated that a car with blue light affixed at the top was also seen by him standing at the other side of the road from which Driver alighted and he came to the restaurant and after purchasing two water bottle, the car left for onward journey. The Sub Inspector was heard saying that the channel should not record his video and saying this, the Sub Inspector site-stepped. Another person whom the Channel interviewed is one Farman Ahmad. This witness stated that at the time of accident, he was standing nearby and he saw that a tanker which was coming from the opposite side hit the cycle born boys who came under the wheel of the tanker. He immediately made a call to a constable namely Ajeet Singh informing him about the accident. Thereafter, the channel showed the tanker standing bearing Registration No UP 12 C-0927. Complainant Sunil is also shown in the recording by the aforesaid T.V. Channel. He has reiterated his version as contained in the application referred to above which is to the effect that he was unlettered and after the accident, someone put forth before him a typed application misrepresenting that it was a memorandum for entrusting the bodies to him and he affixed his thumb impression without further asking about the contents of the typed letter. During interview, he prayed that the FIR be recorded afresh on the basis of the application which he has given. Be that as it may, the earlier Bench has already taken suo motu notice of the PIL. From the facts on record, it would transpire that the Santro car mentioned in the F I R which is stated to be involved in the accident has been disowned by the petitioner and it is stated that the said car is not even remotely connected with him and he had never used the said car for any purpose and he has also denied to have travelled in the car at all or to have been on the wheels of the said car at the time of accident. He has also denied to have known the owner of the car. From the news papers report, it is clearly indicated that it was tanker which was involved in the accident. The subsequent report of the complainant addressed to Superintendent of Police also substantiates the news report that it was tanker which was involved in the accident. The news report is also to the effect that Driver of the Tanker namely Goldee was taken into custody and he confessed to be driving the Tanker which hit the boys. It was also stated that the Tanker and the driver were taken into custody.

We have also considered the sequence of events mentioned by the petitioner leading to lodging of FIR nominating him as the offender in the accident and also the fact that the petitioner had already made reference against the District Magistrate for initiating contempt proceeding for showing disrespect to the dignity of the Court.

The disquieting aspect is that if the news reports and contents of CD are to be believed, the role played by the police particularly the Station officer is most hideous in initially taking into the custody the Tanker and also the Driver and subsequently, managing to lend a different colour to the entire matter. The Tanker with Registration number is shown in the TV Channel. In the news reports the name of the Driver has been given as Goldee. What happened to the Tanker and the Driver, if the accident is believed to have been caused by the Tanker, was a matter which in our considered view, required thorough investigation/enquiry and it was in this light that the Special Officer (Vigilance) of this Court, a Senior Higher Judicial Service officer of the rank of District Judge, was entrusted with the enquiry into the matter directing him to submit his report within 10 days to this Court. In the application of the petitioner dated 24.11.2010 which has been annexed by the District Judge Bijnor alongwith his letter referred to supra, it has been stated in para 1 that Mr A.B Rajmauli, the District Magistrate, has no respect for judiciary and he has committed contempt of the court for which a reference has been made to Hon High Court on 5.6.2010. Photo copy of reference has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the application. In Annexure-1, which is a letter addressed to Registrar General through District Judge Bijnor, it has been stated that on 18.5.2010 while the court was busy hearing arguments in PA case no 07 of 2008 Prem Bala v Hari Ram, the proceeding of the court was disrupted and came to a halt on account of blaring of hooter fixed on the Ambassador Car of the Distt Magistrate Bijnor. It is further stated that plying of four wheelers through campus was prohibited due to campus being crowded with litigant public and lawyers. The above facts were noted by the officer in the order sheet of PA case No 7 of 2008. The aforesaid vehicle again passed through the campus of the court at 1.20 pm blaring hooter at its top and this misfeasance, it is reported, was repeated by the Distt Magistrate with intention to lower down the dignity of the courts in the estimation of public at large notwithstanding the fact that there was separate road which could be used by the District Magistrate for passage of the vehicle. It is further mentioned that a show cause notice was issued but he did not show cause. It is also mentioned that the hooter was used by the District Magistrate despite its prohibition as contained in the order of the Division Bench in W.P No 3648 (M/B) 2006 decided on 16th Dec 2006 and consequent GO issued by the Government vide GO No 1284/30.4.2007/35P/77 dated July 18, 2007.

A Judge or Magistrate has a duty to discharge his judicial functions in the interest of justice. The courts cannot be intimidated or run on dictate of any one except on the own conscience of the presiding officer. The power of the High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty to protect members of the subordinate courts. On consideration of the above facts relating to the incident of blaring of hooter as mentioned above, we have given our anxious considerations to the facts, it was held that it ex-facie crystallized that the ingredients of section 2 (C ) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were disclosed. However, the contempt proceedings were separated from the P.I.L and the matter was referred to Hon Chief Justice for nominating appropriate Bench for the purpose.

As stated supra, in this matter, a vigilance probe was ordered by the Court vide order of the Court dated 9.12.2010. Sri V.P.Pathak, Special Officer (Vigilance) of this Court who was actively assisted by Sri Mohd Salim, Joint Registrar of this Court took over the probe and submitted the report dated 3.1.2011 to this Court in sealed cover on 5.1.2011. A copy of the vigilance report was ordered to be supplied to Sri U.N.Sharma Advocate appearing for the District Magistrate Bijnor besides making available a copy of the report to the Government Advocate. The counsel appearing for both sides were heard at prolix length on various dates and ultimately, the judgment in the case was reserved on 25.1.2011.

The Special Officer (Vigilance) examined in all 22 persons which are EW 1 Sri Kuljeet Singh Proprietor of Chaudhary Rstaurant situated at Bhaguwala Police Station Mandawali District Bijnor, E.W 2 Sri Farman Ahmad, Co-proprietor of Chaudhary Restaurant as aforesaid, E.W 3 Smt Prabha , mother of the deceased Nitin, E.W 4, Smt Parwati, mother of the deceased Vikas, E.W 5, Sri Rajiv Kumar, Process Server posted in outlying Court Najibabad, District Bijnor, E.W 6 Sri Idramani Verma, Station officer PS Mandawali Dsitrict Bijnor, E.W 7 Sri Yashovardhan Misra, Advocate, President Bar Association, Najibabad, District Bijnor, E.W 8 Sri Dharmendra Yadav, Advocate Secretary Bar Association Najibabad District Bijnor, E.W 9, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate practising at Najibabad Dsitrict Bijnor, E.W 10 Sri Abrar Alam, aDvocate practising at Najibabad District Bijnor and a native of Bhaguwala village PS Mandawali District Bijnor, E.W 11, Sri Sunil, the complainant and father of the deceased Nitin, E.W 12 Sri Tirath Ram Singh, Reader posted in the court of Civil Judge (J.D) Najibabad District Bijnor, EW 13 Sri Pramod Kumar, Orderly, posted in the outlying court, E.W 14, Sri Manoj Kumar office Peon posted in the outlying court, E.W 15 Sri Shivanand Rai, Press Reporter of Dainik Jagran News paper, E.W 16, Sri Aijaz Ahmad, Press reporter of Amar Ujala Daily News Paper, E.W 17, Sri Neeraj Sharma Press Reporter of Daily Hindustan News paper, EW 18, Sri Altaf Husain, Press Reporter of Local TV Channel TV-100, EW 19 Sri Ajit Singh constable posted at police outpost Bhaguwala PS Mandawali District Bijnor, E.W 20 Sri Sonu Uncle of deceased Nitin and Vikas, EW 21, Sri Babu father of deceased Vikas and EW 22 Sri Peetam Singh Advocate a native of Mandawali Distt Bijnor.

EW 1 Kuljeet Singh, proprietor of the Restaurant in front of which the accident took place stuck to his version that it was tanker which caused the accident resulting in death of two minor boys. He also stated that after hitting the cycle on which the boys were riding the driver of the tanker took the vehicle in reverse gear and then sped away. He also stated that Santro Car displaying blinking light tried to chase the tanker but could not do so.

EW 2 Farman Ahmad co-proprietory of Chaudhary Restaurant substantiated the version of EW 1.

EW 3, Smt Prabha mother of the deceased Nitin stated that it was a car fitted with blue light which caused the accident. She also stated that at that time, she was on foot alongwith her sister in law and saw the accident.

EW 4 Smt Parwati mother of deceased Vikas stated that on that day she alongwith Prabha her sister in law was coming on a tempo after making purchases from the market. By the time she reached the scene of occurrence, the accident had already taken place. She was informed by the gathering there that the accident was caused by a Santro car which belonged to a Judge.

EW 6 is Indramani Verma, station officer PS Mandawali. He stated before the Special Officer (Vigilance) that immediately after information, he rushed to the scene of occurrence and when he reached, he was informed by the gathering that the boys were hit by a tanker. Thereafter, crowed swelled and people began naming Tabrez Ahmad who had caused the accident. He also stated that he was handed over a typed report which he clearly stated was got typed from outside. He also stated that the crowd was exerting pressure to register the case against Sri Tabrez Ahmad. Since he was not present at the station, he instructed SI present there to register the case on the basis of written report.

EW 7 is President of the Local Bar Association. His statement is based on hearsay. What he stated is that he heard from people that the accident was caused by Santro Car displaying blue light. He spoke about intimate friendship between Abrar Ahmad and Tabrez Ahmad. He also stated that Tabrez Ahmad did not enjoy good reputation.

EW 8, is Sri Dharmendra Yadav Advocate, Secretary Local Bar Association. He stated that he happened to be at the place of occurrence on being called by Advocate Mohd Hanif who was present at the police station in connection with loss of his purse containing Rs 22000/- which it is further stated, he had inadvertently left in a truck from which he alighted near Police Station Mandwali. He also stated that when reached police station Mandwali with Arun Sharma Advocate, he saw assemblage of 100-150 people and at that time local MLA Sri Sheeshram Singh was also present. These persons were exerting pressure on the Station officer to lodge the FIR naming Tabrez Ahmad. He also stated that at that time, the Station officer was telling them that the Tanker which had caused the accident had been taken into custody and was standing and how could he register the case naming a judicial officer. He also stated that in the meanwhile the district authorities also came at the police station and directed the station officer to register the case naming the judicial officer.

EW 9 Arun Kumar Sharma also supported the version of EW 8 stating that the FIR naming Tabrez Ahmad had been lodged under pressure from District Authorities.

EW 10 Abrar Alam stated that he had come back from Dehradun at 11 pm and next day he received a call from circle officer Najibabad who informed him about the accident. This witness narrated details about his enmity with Local MLA and Asif. He also stated that the entire fuss was created by Asif who beguiled the gathering that the accident had been caused by the Santro car displaying blue light.

EW 11 is Sunil father of deceased Nitin. According to him when he reached at the scene of occurrence, he was told by the persons present there that the accident crushing the two children was caused by Santro car displaying blue light. He stated that he did not seen any tanker detained at the police station. He however stated that a person said to be driver of the Tanker was lodged in the police lock up. He detracted from his earlier version given before the TV Channel and also from the contents of the affidavit filed by him stating that he gave the said statement before local TV channel under duress from certain lawyers.

EW 12 Tirath Ram Singh who was posted as Reader in the outlying Court stated that on that day, Sri Tabrez was present in Chamber upto 5.30 pm and he had left for his home town after 5.30 pm to celebrate Festival of Idul Zuha.

EW 13 is Pramod Kumar who was serving as orderly to Sri Tabrez Ahmad. He stated that the officer owed Alto Car bearing registration no 3355. He denied any proximity of Abrar Ahmad with Tabrez. He also stated that Sri Tabrez left for his home town namely village Sultanpur in district Haridwar on 16.11.2010 at about 5.30 pm. He denied that the officer owned any other car.

EW 14 is Manoj Kumar who was the office peon. He also supported the version of EW 13. He too denied any proximity of the officer/petitioner with any of the lawyers.

EW 15 is Sivanand Rai Press reporter of Dainik Jagran. He produced the news item published in news paper dated 17.11.2010 and 18.11.2010. He substantiated the news published in the newspapers which was to the effect that it was the Tanker which crushed the two boys and that the Tanker was seized by the police. He stated that the news was published on the basis of feed back supplied by the local correspondent and through the police. He also stated that according to the report received by him the bodies of the deceased could not be identified upto 8.30 pm on 16.11.2010. He also stated that the accident was caused by tanker which was chased and taken into custody by the police and was detained at the police station. He also stated that according to the report received by him, the cleaner had confessed to accident. He also stated that the news was published independently without any pressure.

EW 16 is Aijaz Ahmad press reporter of Amar Ujala. He stated that according to the report received by him the accident was caused by Tanker and the Tanker was seized and Driver of the tanker was also arrested by the police. This news report was published on the basis of statement of Circle officer. He also attested to the news report that the two children who were killed in the accident could not be identified till the last report. He also stated that police sent information to various nearby villages for identification of children but identification could not be done till then.

EW 17 is Niraj Sharma news reporter of Hindustan Daily Newspaper. According to the witness, the news report was based on the basis of GD entry. The news also mentioned that driver of the Tanker was also taken into custody after finding him responsible for the accident.

EW 18 Altaf Husain is news reporter of Local TV Channel TV 100. He stated that the accident was caused by Tanker on 16.11.2010 and he prepared the Video recording and news without any extrinsic pressure. The news channel showed clips of offending Tanker and also of jeep of Circle officer standing in the premises of the police station. He also showed ocular account of witnesses present at the site of accident including the proprietor of Chaudhary Restaurant where the accident took place.

The Special Officer (Vigilance) sought information about the Car bearing registration No UA 08K-0749 which is alleged to be a Santro Car belonging to Sri Tabrez Ahmad. From the information received from the ARTO (Administration) Bijnor, the said vehicle was a Tata S a goods carrier vehicle and it was owned by Rajveer son of Sri Mangat Singh resident of village Khedli Post Bahadarabad District Haridwar.

The conclusions drawn by the Special Officer (Vigilance) are excerpted below.

1. That the complainant Sri Sunil , his brother Babu and Sonu and their Ladies Smt Prabha and Smt Parwati were not present on the spot at the time of accident, though they have claimed to be the eye witnesses.
2. That the accident was caused by the Tanker No UP 12 C 0927, which was also detained by the police immediately after the accident and was kept standing at the police station Mandawali for ten days and it was released on 26.11.2010 to Sri Pawan Kumar and Onkar after technical inspection by HCMT on 26.11.2010. The Driver/Cleaner Goldi Kumar was also arrested and detained at the police station Mandawali and was interrogated but his interrogation is not recorded in writing by the Station officer.

3. That the presence of Sri Tabrez Ahmad, Civil Judge (Jr Div) Najibabad is found on the spot and his car was standing there. He has also informed the Station officer, Mandawali, Sri Indramani Verma on telephone that the accident was caused by the Tanker and two boys were crushed. It is not found that the accident was caused by his car.

4. That the FIR was not got typed by the complainant, Sri Sunil and was got typed by some other persons and only his thumb impression was taken on the said FIR. According to the complainant, Sri Sunil, his FIR was lodged at 3.00 pm on the next day i.e 17.11.2010, whereas, the FIR has been shown to have been registered at the police station, Mandawali on 16.11.2010 at 8.10 pm. According to the Station officer, Sri Indramani Verma, the inquest was started at 18.10 (6.10 pm) on 16.11.2010 whereas according to Police record, the F.I.R itself has been lodged at 8.10 p.m. The mentioning of crime number and sections on the inquest reports shows that there was a great manipulation in the Police papers and in lodging the FIR.

5. That the presence of Administrative Officers including A.D.M Additional Superintendent of Police, Bijnor and the local M.L.A Sri Sheeshram Singh etc is found at the police Stanton, Mandawali. Therefore, lodging of FIR out of pressure of District Administration and Local Politicians cannot be ruled out.

6. That according to the report of A.R.T.O (Administration), Bijnor, the number of vehicle shown in the FIR UA 08 K-0749 was found to be the registration number of a vehicle Tata-S which is a mini goods vehicle. The said number is not found to be the number of a car.

7. That contents of Cassette (CD) available on record, have been proved by Sri Altaf Husain, EW 18, the reporter of TV Channel TV 100. According to the said recording also, it is found that the said accident was caused by Tanker No UP 12-C, 0927 which was standing at Police Station, Mandawali.

Now the question arises whether we should act upon the vigilance report submitted in pursuance of the order of this Court or we should direct for further probe by an independent agency or by the local police.

In Delhi Judicial Service Ass, V State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC, the Apex Court observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is head of the Magistracy in the district who administers justice to ensure, protect and safeguard the rights of citizens. The subordinate courts at the district level cater to the need of the masses in administering justice at the base level. By and large the majority of the people get their disputes adjudicated in subordinate courts, it is, in the general interest of the community that the authority of subordinate courts is protected. If the CJM is led into trap by unscrupulous police officers and if he is assaulted, handcuffed and roped the public is found to lose faith in courts, which would be destructive of basic structure of an ordered society. If this is permitted Rule of Law shall be supplanted by Police Raj. the Apex Court further observed that viewed in this perspective the incident is not a case of physical assault on an individual judicial officer instead it is an onslaught on the institution of the judiciary itself. The incident is a clear interference with the administration of justice, lowering its judicial authority. Its effect was not confined to one district or State, it had a tendency to effect the entire judiciary in the country. The incident highlights a dangerous trend that if the police is annoyed with the orders of a presiding officer of a court, he would be arrested on flimsy manufactured charges, to humiliate him publicly as has been done in the instant case......"

In the instant case, as stated supra, it would crystallize that the District Magistrate was annoyed with the petitioner as he had made a reference to the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings. The District Magistrate had also faced departmental rebuff for ignoring the protocol of a visiting dignitary i.e Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court having viewed the matter seriously, took serious objection to the conduct of the District Magistrate and had sought clarifications from the State Chief Secretary.

From the finding of the Special Officer (Vigilance), it leaves no manner of doubt that the Car number disclosed in the FIR was the registration number of a mini truck and that the officer did not own any Santro Car and that he had an Altro Car bearing different registration number. The other conclusions drawn by the Special Officer (Vigilance) are (1) The presence of Tanker at the Police Station after it was seized for causing the accident, (2) own admission of the SHO and Circle officer that Tanker was involved and Driver of the Tanker had been taken into custody, (3) the own admission of the complainant itself that he had seen the Driver in the lock up and also the tanker standing at the police station, (4) the presence of Tanker at the Police Station as shown by the Local Channel and various news reports, (5) the presence of district authorities at the police station with local MLA and (6) also the circumstance of typed report being submitted at the police station for lodging the FIR and also taking into reckoning the two instances cited by the Special Officer (Vigilance) as discussed above, did indicate that a false case has been foisted upon the Judicial officer at the behest of the District Administration.

In the case involving Chief Judicial Magistrate Nadiad in Gujarat the Apex Court had instituted enquiry which was conducted by a sitting High Court Judge and on that basis, the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceeding initiated against the Judicial Officer followed by initiation of contempt proceeding against the erring police officers.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the finding recorded by the Special Officer (Vigilance), we are of the view that the FIR lodged vide case crime No 220 of 2010 at the police station Mandawali, District Bijnor against the petitioner, being a sheer concoction based on malafides, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.

Now it remains to be seen whether the case should be given quietus or it should be allowed to be investigated afresh on the basis of facts disclosed in the complainant's report dated 18.11.2010 given to Dy. S.P. Najibabad and also on the basis of the facts found by the Special officer Vigilance. The conclusion drawn by the Special officer Vigilance is that the accident was caused by Tanker and it was seized and that its driver was also arrested. From the various reports like statements of the witnesses and also news reports and also the statement of the SHO and the Circle officer Police, the finding of the Special Officer (Vigilance) receives reinforcement that the judicial officer or its car was not involved in the accident. Therefore, the further investigation should be in the light of the complainant's report dated 18.11.2010 and the conclusions drawn by the Special Officer (Vigilance).

At this stage, we have to consider whether the investigation should be allowed to be conducted by the local police or it should be entrusted to CBI. For entrusting investigation to the CBI, there should be exceptional circumstances.

Therefore, we have to see as to whether this case constitutes exceptional circumstances warranting further probe to the extent of unfolding the role played by the District Administration in falsely involving the Judicial officer particularly the role of the District Magistrate Bijnor against whom serious allegations have been made by the petitioner. In this connection, what is the view articulated by the Apex Court in its various decisions. On this question, our attention falls on the ex-cathedra decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571. The para 70 of the said decision being germane, is excerpted below.

"Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasize that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the courts must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers . The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessa4y for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."


In the light of the above decision, we have to see whether the case furnishes exceptional situation warranting action for entrusting the enquiry to CBI.

We have again delved into the report attended with other allied circumstances whether fair investigation can be done by the local police.

The Special Officer (Vigilance) cited two instances generating doubts in the mind of the officer about the impartiality of the district administration in facilitating fair enquiry during their visit to the place for enquiry. The instances are mentioned at page 34 and 35 of the report and being relevant are quoted below.

"This is also relevant to mention here that we did not disclose our programme to visit the spot to anyone on 15.11.2010. As the witnesses Sunil, Babu and Sonu did not appear on 15.11.2010, so we suddenly made a programme to visit and see the spot in the noon. We took an official from the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor and Process Server, Rajiv Kumar with us. Our official car was being escorted by a Police Jeep to reach the spot. But suddenly we observed that the Police Gypsy after 10 to 15 Kms started to become slow. On enquiry, it was told by the Police personnels that their vehicle is making trouble then after, the Escort started to move slowly and after a distance of hardly one Km, the said Police Vehicle was stopped and it was informed that it has become out of order. Thereafter, we decided to proceed towards the spot without escort and we reached on the spot with the help of the official, posted in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. We found that some 15 to 20 persons were already present on the spot and thereafter, the number of people was increased to 50 to 60. It appears that our vehicle was stopped or delayed just to make the presence of the persons on the spot. Then we made the inspection of the spot and prepared the site plan at the pointing out of Kuljeet Singh and other persons present......."

Another instance cited by the Special Officer (Vigilance) mentioned at page 35 is also quoted below.

"On 17.12.2010 when we were recording evidence of Sri Babu EW 21, a large number of people came at the PWD Inspection House, Bijnor in the form of a mob, raising noises. Feeling disturbed, we enquired about them. Some of them forcibly entered in the room, where statement was being recorded during enquiry. A person in front of the people said that he belongs to Vyapar Mandal and wants to give memorandum and to say something and other persons also said to give some applications and affidavits. Then we politely pursuaded them to hand over the memorandum and affidavit to our staff. One of them, Sri Peetam Singh, advocate pressed that his statement should be recorded. The we recored his statement as EW 22 and kept his affidavit on record. The other persons have handed over their affidavits and applications to our staff and did not ask to record their statements...."


From the above discussion, it would transpire that the allegations made by the judicial officer in his report to this Court has some substance that a false case has been foisted upon him with active connivance of district administration.

We may also advert to the statements referred to in the report of the Special Officer (Vigilance) firstly of the Circle officer and secondly of the Station House officer. From the various news reports discussed by the Special Officer (Vigilance) and also from the own statements of the police officers, it would transpire that they were clearly convinced that the accident was caused by the Tanker and not by the Car owned by the Judicial officer and Tanker had also been seized. It is also admitted by the SHO that typed written report was received by him where such facility of computer typing was not available at the Station or around the police station. The Special Officer (Vigilance) has also referred to presence of officials of District Administrations including Additional Supdt of Police and Addl District Magistrate at the police station. There is thus ample evidence on record that pressure was mounted on the police to act on dotted lines. 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.

It would thus transpire that the police would not be able to conduct fair investigation in the matter and in the circumstances, we are of the view that this case clearly furnishes exceptional situation where this Court should intervene and direct the investigation to be entrusted to the CBI.

In view of the above, it is directed that the CBI shall conduct the investigation and submit its interim report within 3 months before the Court. Office is directed to provide a copy of the order to the counsel for CBI within seven days. The Government Advocate will ensure that all papers are handed over to CBI forthwith.

In the meanwhile, it is directed that the State Government shall transfer (1) District Magistrate Bijnor, (2) Supdt of Police Bijnor and (3) Station House officer PS Mandawali immediately if not already transferred in order to ensure that there be no impediment in the fair and smooth investigation by the CBI. This Court is informed that Sri Tabrez Ahmad Civil Judge (JD) Najibabad Bijnor has already been transferred from Bijnor.

The office is directed to make available a copy of this Judgment to learned counsel for CBI and also to learned Government Advocate within 3 days positively.

The matter shall be listed immediately after 3 months on which date the CBI shall submit progress/status report for perusal of the Court.

                   
                     

                     

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