IMPORTANT DECISIONS
 A private purchaser - can get the food article analysed from a public analyst. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 421 (S.C.)
Bail - Complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 382 (S.C.)
Contraband - Information received in police station - Sufficient time to take action - Failure to record in writing or failure to send copy to superior officer - It is a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of S.42 of NDPS Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 444 (S.C.)
Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued and served - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Complaint filed on the basis of second notice - Cause of action arises once - Complaint is not within time - Order taking cognizance set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 618 (S.C.)
Investigation - can be handed over to CBI even after filing of the charge sheet. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 360 (S.C.)
Murder - Death sentence - Mere number of persons killed is not by itself a circumstance which justifies the death sentence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 663 (S.C.)
Private defence - Principles governing - Analysed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 588 (S.C.)
Quashing of FIR - at the instance of third parties is unknown to law. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 553(S.C.)
S.42 NDPS Act - Total non compliance of S.42(1) and 42(2) is impermissible - Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation is acceptable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 444 (S.C.)
Three dying declarations - Deceased was having acute pain - Minor discrepancies - Does not render it void - Dying declarations must be construed in proper perspective. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Clean hands - Prosecution not disclosed complete facts - Definitely there is an element of doubt in the prosecution case. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 430 (Allahabad)
 Complaint u/s 200 or petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Option is there to invoke either - Seeking directions from Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should take place as a last measure. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal trespass into a dwelling house with intention to commit an offence - Offender not successful in committing the offence - Held, accused is even then liable for offence u/s 451 IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 533 (Kerala)
Dishonour of cheque - Funds can be checked online at the bank branch where it was presented and cheque need not to be sent to the bank branch from where it was issued. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 661 (Gujarat)
Dishonour of cheque - Cheque signed on its face and on the reverse - Goes to show that the said cheque was intended to be used as a 'self cheque' and not issued by accused to any other person. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 544 (Karnataka)
 Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Accused not to be cross examined and should also not be examined to fill up a gap in the prosecution evidence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case (Gauhati) 499 (DB)
Fact - sought to be proved by way of additional evidence admitted in reply to the application - Instead of allowing the application its effect be examined by Court during course of arguments. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 531 (P&H)
For invoking - provision of S.156(3) Cr.P.C. at least an intimation to the police of commission of a cognizable offence u/s 154(1) is a condition precedent. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Insecticides - Sample taken from sealed container - Properly stored - It is the manufacturer and not the stockist/dealer/distributor who is liable - Proceedings quashed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 606 (P&H)
Marriage of a girl below 18 years of age is void - Police protection not provided to such a run away marriage. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Omission on vital point while recording statement u/s 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. - Such omission creates a doubt to the genuineness of the prosecution story. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 439 (Gauhati)
Poppy husk bags - Sitting on bags - Not conscious possession if the residence or place from where the recovery is made, is not the ownership of accused. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 458 (P&H) (DB)
SCST - Mere presence of family members, including resident servant is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 485 (Bombay)
SUBJECT INDEX
Arms Act, 1959
Arms Act, 1959, S.17 - Arms licence - Cancellation - Arms licence can be cancelled or suspended on the ground that the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or the public safety. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 528 (Allahabad)
Arms Act, 1959, S.17 - Arms licence - Cancellation - Firing in marriage ceremony - Accidental death - Petitioner involved in the criminal case on the basis of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. - Not a ground for suspension or cancellation of arms licence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 528 (Allahabad)
Army Rules, 1954
Army Rules, 1954, R.34 - Rule 34 is mandatory - Interval between respondent having been informed of the charges for which he was to be tried and is arraignment less than ninety six hours - Merely because respondent pleaded guilty is immaterial - Mandatory provision having been breached, order setting aside the proceedings upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 374 (S.C.)
Army Rules, 1954, R.34 - Rule 34 of Army Rules, 1954 is mandatory - Interval between accused being informed of charge for which he is to be tried and his arraignment shall not be less than ninety six hours. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 374 (S.C.)
Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence - In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to be conclusively established that the chain of circumstances lead to the only inference, that of guilt of the accused ruling out the possibility of involvement of any other person to be the author of the crime. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 551 (S.C.)
Clean hands
Clean hands - Prosecution not disclosed complete facts - Definitely there is an element of doubt in the prosecution case - It is the accused alone, who will derive benefit of this lacuna on the part of the prosecution. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 430 (Allahabad)
Constitution of India
Constitution of India, Art.32, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.173(8) - Investigation can be handed over to CBI even after filing of the charge sheet. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 360 (S.C.)
Constitution of India, Art.32 - Charge sheet filed - High police officials involved in the crime - Even thereafter investigation can be directed to be done by CBI when Court feels that investigation by police authorities is not in the proper direction. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 360 (S.C.)
Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Relief - If petitioner is entitled or is claiming more than one relief he must pray for all the reliefs - Normally Court grants only those reliefs which are specifically prayed for - Though the court has very vide discretion in granting relief, the court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 553 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.2(d), 154 - Complaint - An information is a complaint only when it is made to a Magistrate - Information u/s 154 given to a police officer orally or in writing can be the basis for the police officer-in-charge of police station to proceed with the matter. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance - Non payment - Imprisonment - Imprisonment is due to own fault for not making the payment - Imprisonment due to own fault is not a ground to refuse payment of maintenance due for the period during which he was in prison. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 481 (Kerala)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance - 'Means' does not signify only visible means but it includes capacity to earn money. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 481 (Kerala)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance - 'Sufficient cause' - As referred in S.125(3) Cr.P.C. does not allow any opportunity to reagitate any issues settled or raise any pleas which were not taken when the order of maintenance was passed - If a change in the circumstances of any person ordered to pay maintenance has taken place, the Code enables such person to seek relief by resorting to S.127 of the Code. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 481 (Kerala)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance - 'Sufficient cause' - As referred in S.125(3) Cr.P.C. implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons - Does not imply any negligence, inaction or want of bona fides on the part of the person concerned. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 481 (Kerala)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125, Family Courts Act, 1984, Ss.7, 20 - Maintenance - Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Family Court established under the Family Courts Act has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 508 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986 - Maintenance - Divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband after the expiry of period of iddat also as long as she does not remarry. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 508 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125(3) - Enforcement of maintenance order - It is no defence for a person ordered to pay maintenance to contend that he has no job, property or income and that it amounts to "sufficient cause" as understood in S.125(3) Cr.P.C. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 481 (Kerala)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.154, 156 - Default committed by a police officer in terms of S.154(1) - Person aggrieved can invoke the provisions of S.154(3) and 156(3) as well. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3) - For invoking provision of S.156(3) Cr.P.C. at least an intimation to the police of a cognizable offence u/s 154(1) is a condition precedent - However, there can be exceptions where the facts and circumstances of the case justify directly approaching the Court. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3) - For invoking provision of S.156(3) Cr.P.C. at least an intimation to the police of commission of a cognizable offence u/s 154(1) is a condition precedent. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3) - No particular format is provided for a petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Not strictly to be construed as a complaint - Absence of specific or improperly worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details not fatal when it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable offence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3) - Order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. - It is an order passed at a pre-cognizance stage. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.156(3), 190 - Reference of S.190 in S.156(3) Cr.P.C. - Reference is merely to determine jurisdiction - It in no way controls the power of Court to direct registration and/or investigation as contemplated in the provision of S.156(3) Cr.P.C. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.156(3), 200 - Complaint u/s 200 or petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Option is there to invoke either - Seeking directions from Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should take place as a last measure. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.156(3), 200 - Distinction between provision of S.156(3) and S.200 Cr.P.C. - U/s 200 Cr.P.C. complainant is expected to state the facts giving details and correct version which amounts to committing an offence alleged whereas u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. strict rule of pleadings is not applicable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.161, 164 - Omission on vital point while recording statement u/s 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. - Such omission creates a doubt to the genuineness of the prosecution story. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 439 (Gauhati)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.161, 164 - Unexplained and unjustified delay in recording the statement of material witness always goes against the prosecution. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 439 (Gauhati)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.177 - Jurisdiction - To constitute the territorial jurisdiction, the whole or a part of "cause of action" must have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the same must be decided on the basis of the averments made in the complaint without embarking upon any enquiry. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 698 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.190 - Taking cognizance of an offence - Taking of cognizance is a sine qua non for holding a valid trial - It is not the same thing as issuance of process. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 388 (Bombay) (FB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.190, 203 - Complaint - Summoning order - Revision against - Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court & High Court - Petition filed in High Court without first exhausting remedy of Sessions Court - Held, petition in the High Court is maintainable as it has got concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 542 (P&H)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.190, 203 - Complaint - Summoning order - Revision against - It is an intermediate or quasi judicial order against which a revision is maintainable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 542 (P&H)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.205 - Exemption from personal appearance can be granted when summons are issued in a warrant case if warrant of arrest has been against him in course of investigation purportedly under S.73 Cr.P.C. - Issuance of warrant prior to commencement of proceeding u/s 204 Cr.P.C. - Not a legal bar for consideration of application u/s 205 Cr.P.C. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 650 (Patna)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.205 - Exemption from personal appearance - Where summons are issued at the first instance, whether it may be in summons case or warrant case, application u/s 205 Cr.P.C. can be allowed when (1) accused resides or carries on business at a far off place; (ii) on account of physical reasons; (iii) if insistence of his personal presence, would implicit enormous suffering or tribulation on him and comparative advantage of disallowing such petition would be less; (if) Pardanashin women; (v) Old and sick person; (vi) Factory workers and labourers; (vii) Busy business people or public functionaries; (viii) Corporate employees - These are only illustrative reasons and not exhaustive. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 650 (Patna)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.243, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.380, 411 - Theft in dwelling house and recovery of stolen property - Accused prayed for comparison by an expert of three signatures available in the record of RTO - Question of selling and purchasing of alleged stolen motorcycle by accused - Matter not with purview and jurisdiction of Criminal Court - Petition dismissed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 493 (Allahabad)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.249, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 506 & 34 - Dismissal of complaint u/s 498-A, 506 & 34 IPC in default - Complaint restored by Sessions Judge in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - It is not an order recalled by the same Court which dismissed it - Order upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 454 (P&H)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.256, 317 - Personal attendance of accused - Permanent exemption during trial - Cannot be granted - However, Magistrate can exempt personal attendance even when accused was directed to be personally present on a date of hearing on an acceptable ground. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 608 (Karnataka)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.295, 397 - Exemption from personal appearance - Rejection of application - Revision against - Held, maintainable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 650 (Patna)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.313 - Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Accused not to be cross examined and should also not be examined to fill up a gap in the prosecution evidence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 499 (Gauhati) (DB)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 - Additional accused - An accused against whom Magistrate refused to proceed by summoning him, or dismissed the complaint against him in exercise of power u/s 203 Cr.P.C. can be summoned as an accused at a later stage in exercise of power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial alongwith earlier charge sheeted accused for the same or a connected offence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 419 (Allahabad)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the Court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 639 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - If trial Court's view is possible or plausible view, then Appellate Court or the High Court is not justified in interfering with it - Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial Court is utterly perverse and on the basis of evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 588 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401(3) - Acquittal - Revision against by private complainant - Revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly - It can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice - In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 615 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail - No blanket order can be passed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. to prevent the accused from being arrested at all in connection with the case. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 578 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail - On the strength of an order granting anticipatory bail an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial Court. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 578 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail - Should be of limited duration only and primarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge sheet is submitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 578 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 - Bail - Complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed - It cannot be said that the only remedy available to the complainant is to get the order of bail cancelled on account of its misuse. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 382 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 - Bail - Reasons not given while granting bail - Order passed mechanically without considering the pros and cons of the matter - While granting bail, particularly in serious cases like murder some reasons justifying the grant of bail are necessary - Order granting bail set aside - Accused to surrender - After surrender of accused, bail application be considered again. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 382 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 - FIR - Quashing of FIR at the instance of third parties is unknown to law. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case (S.C.) 553
Criminal trial
Criminal trial - Mandatory provision breached - Pleading guilty is immaterial - Order setting aside proceedings, upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 374 (S.C.)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B - Scope and ambit of S.3 of DPA is different from the scope and ambit of S.304-B IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3,4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A - Ambit and scope of Ss.3 & 4 DPA is different from the ambit and scope of S.498-A IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Dying declaration - Does not become unacceptable merely because certification by doctor about the fit mental condition of the deceased was not taken - Certificate by doctor is a rule of caution - However, the person who records it must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind to give the dying declaration. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 470 (M.P.) (DB)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Dying declaration - If the dying declaration is clear, cogent and trustworthy and is not a product of imagination or the person who is giving the dying declaration has not been tutored or prompted, the same can be the sole basis of conviction. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 470 (M.P.) (DB)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Three dying declarations - Not to be discarded only because of minor inconsistencies. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Three dying declarations - One given to father, second to IO and third to Tehsildar/Magistrate - Dying declarations given when deceased was having acute pain and minor inconsistencies in one dying declaration with another should not render the dying declarations void - Dying declarations must be construed in proper perspective. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Torture and harassment - Told by deceased to her brothers - Statement of a dead person admissible in law if it is as to the cause of the death or as to any of the circumstances of transactions which resulted in her death - Testimony of brothers of deceased, no evidence in law to establish offence u/s 498-A IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 687 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.35 - Age - Determination - Margin of error two years - Same standard is required to be applied for the purpose of S.35 of Evidence Act both in civil and criminal proceedings. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 434 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.35 - School admission register - An entry in a school register is not a public document - It must be proved in accordance with law. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 434 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96 to 100 - Private defence - Principles governing : (i) Right of private defence is recognized within certain reasonable limits; (ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation; (iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence into operation; (iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension; (v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude; (vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property; (vii) even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record; (viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt; (ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence; (x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 588 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 - Abetment - Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing - Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 461 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.366, 368 - Murder reference - High Court can recall the witnesses for confrontation as proceedings before High Court are in the nature of original proceedings and an extended trial. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 663 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.366, 368 - Murder - Death sentence - Mere number of persons killed is not by itself a circumstance which justifies the death sentence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 663 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.433, 433-A, 432 - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Accused serving 17 years imprisonment out of which 14 years actual and 3 years remission - Seeking premature release - Not a fit case to release accused on completion of 14 years of imprisonment - Case for premature release may be taken up by authorities after he completes 20 years imprisonment, including remissions earned. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 601 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Ss.6 & 68, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, R.22 - Murder - Juvenile - Age - Accused a juvenile as per School admission register - However as per opinion of Medical Board accused was not juvenile - Entry in school register duly proved in accordance with law - Accused is a juvenile - As per Rule 22 opinion of Medical Board is to be preferred only when date of birth certificate from the school is not available. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 434 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 - Murder - Appeal against acquittal - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Some suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence - Same not conclusively proving and establishing that the accused has committed the murder - Unless and until the evidence adduced clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of the accused, an order of conviction cannot be passed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 639 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 - Murder - Death sentence - Young age of the accused persons - No criminal antecedents - Murder though brutal but not a diabolic murder nor had the murderers acted in depravity of their minds by disfiguring the bodies - Incident must have taken place barely within 10-15 minutes - Cruel acts on the part of the accused do not justify death sentence - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - However, accused not to be released unless they complete 25 years of actual imprisonment. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 663 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 - Murder - Conviction - Evidence that after receiving gun shot the victim fell down - However, it is clear from post mortem report that no gun shot wound was found on the body of victim - Dispute relates to property - There is variation of evidence - Serious doubt whether the appellants had committed the offence - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 474 (Allahabad) (DB)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 45 & 57 - Life imprisonment - Not an imprisonment for the whole of convicts life - A convict awarded life sentence has to undergo imprisonment for at least 14 years which is subject to exceptions of power of President and Governor vested under Articles 72 & 61 of Constitution of India. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 601 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149 - Conviction u/s 302/149 IPC - Appeal against - Long standing enmity between families of accused and prosecution party - Eye witnesses evidence corroborating each other - Sufficient opportunity given to cross examine PW1 but appellant on one pretext or the other avoided it which shows that appellant never intended to cross examine PW1 - Cross examination of PW2 clearly establishes that he was under tremendous pressure - His cross examination deliberately avoided till murder of PW1 - Testimony of PW1 regarding date, time and place of occurrence corroborated by evidence of PW2 who turned hostile - Both PW1 and PW2 not chance witnesses - FIR promptly lodged - Medical evidence supporting statement of PW1 - Testimony of PW1 admissible in evidence even without cross examination u/s 33 Evidence Act - Prosecution case established beyond shadow of doubt - Conviction and sentence upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 564 (Allahabad) (DB)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II - Single blow by drati on neck in a sudden fight in heat of passion - Blow not repeated - offence falls under S.300 Exception 4 IPC punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case (H.P.) 694 (DB)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II, S.326 - Nature of offence - Two accused entered the house and made advances towards the deceased who did not respond - Accused 'A' poured acid on deceased which he had brought alongwith him but accused 'B' did nothing more - Deceased died - Accused 'A' convicted u/s 302 and accused 'B' u/s 302 r/w S.34 IPC - Accused 'B' was simply physically present at the time of incident and did no act to facilitate accused 'A' in pouring the acid - Since accused 'B' did not prevent accused 'A' from throwing acid clearly establishes that he had intended to cause injury and to disfigure the deceased as such he is liable to be punished u/s 326 IPC - Accused 'B' was also possessing knowledge that throwing acid is likely to cause death of deceased, a case u/s 304 Part II is also made out - Accused convicted u/s 326 & 304 Part II IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 424 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B - Essential ingredients of the offence u/s 304-B IPC are : (i) That the accused caused death of a woman; (ii) that the accused was husband, or any relative of the husband of that woman; (iii) death of such woman, (a) was caused by any burns, or bodily injury, or (b) occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death was caused within seven years of the marriage of that woman; (iii) soon before her death such woman was subjected to cruelty, or harassment; (iv) the accused had subjected such woman to such cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A - If charge u/s 304-B IPC is not made out, the conviction u/s 498-A IPC can be recorded - S.304-B and S.498-A IPC are both distinct and separate offences. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A, 306, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3 & 4 - Dowry death - Suicide within seven years of marriage - Suicide note that she was being harassed and tortured in connection with dowry demand - High Court quashed charged against sister, mother and father of husband - Material available when taken on its face value leading to inference of their guilt - Order of High Court set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 494 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 - Allegation of theft - If a hyper sensitive person commits suicide then no offence u/s 306 IPC is made out - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 461 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 - For an offence u/s 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 461 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 - Suicide - Ill-treatment by mother-in-law - Last letter of deceased in which there was a reference by way of instruction to her husband that her child should not be given in the custody of the accused as she was horrible - Held, this expression is not such a strong expression that the Courts could come to the conclusion that it was only and only because of the behaviour and the treatment of the accused to the deceased that she was driven to commit suicide - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 519 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306/34 - Suicide within two years of marriage in the year 1983 - Suicide note left behind by deceased - Evidence of parents of deceased that she was harassed for not bringing adequate dowry and thus they instigated and abetted commission of suicide - Acquittal by trial Court - Incident was of the year 1983 when S.498-A IPC and S.113-A Evidence Act were not on the statute book - Suicide note left behind did not constitute ingredients of S.107 IPC - Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is limited - Judgment of acquittal not liable to be interfered with. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 523 (Delhi)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 - Nature of offence - Injuries not such as to arrive to a conclusion that there was any intention to kill - Injury was simple as reported by doctor - Conviction altered from S.307 IPC to S.324 IPC - Protracted trial of 30 years - Sentence reduced to already undergone. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 456 (Allahabad)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307/149, 323/149 - Conviction u/ss 307/149, 323/149 - Appeal against - Farsa and lathi blows given to victim - Injuries grievous in nature - No explanation from prosecution regarding injuries - Farsa used by one of the accused not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion that intention was to kill the injured - Moreso when it is in evidence that Farsa was used from other side - Conviction u/s 307/149 set aside - Conviction u/s 323/149 upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 496 (Allahabad)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 - Grievous hurt - In an altercation accused caused two injuries, one on the chest and other on the shoulder with a knife - As per medical report condition of victim was very bad - No categoric statement in the report that injuries were dangerous to life - Conviction altered from S.307 IPC to S.326 IPC - Accused faced trial for 22 years - Sentence reduced from two years to already undergone which is one year. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 505 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.328 - Case of poisoning - Accused convicted for mixing poisonous substance like Dhatura in pulse being cooked by the informant in her house - Specific statement of informant that she suspected that accused mixed some foreign item in the pulse which after being consumed resulted in food poisoning - FIR lodged after 7-8 hours - No evidence that accused came with a Lota with some foreign substance and mixed the same with the pulse - Dal sent for chemical examination after two days - Sample not proved to be preserved - Dhatura not found in three samples - Prosecution case not established beyond doubt - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 610 (Allahabad)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 - Offence u/s 366 IPC - offence is non compoundable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 491 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 - Rape - FIR - Delay - Report lodged with police but no action taken - Case registered after 15 days when a complaint was sent to SSP - DSP tried to sabotage the entire prosecution in order to protect the accused - No merit in the submission that FIR is ante timed and brought into existence so as to falsely implicate the accused. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 465 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Case of forcible sexual intercourse - Opinion of doctor that prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse - No injury on body of prosecutrix - Clothes not torned - No presence of hair on private part of prosecutrix - No definite opinion by doctor regarding commission of offence - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 645 (Allahabad)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape of minor girl - Defence of false implication - Dispute over a common wall was not of such a grave nature compelling the entire family of the prosecutrix to go to the extent of putting at stake its reputation and fair name of a young girl child to settle the scores with the accused - No merit in the plea. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 465 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.482, 177 - Offence u/ss 406, 420 r/w S.120-B IPC - Quashing - Appointment of appellant's company as C&F Agent of respondent's company - Agreement entered into at Patna - Letter of appointment delivered in Patna - Part of cause of action prima facie appearing to have arisen at Patna - Magistrate at Patna has the jurisdiction - High Court erred to go into merits of the case in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 698 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 - Civil decree on the basis of family settlement - Complaint by third party that parties to the decree are not related and thereby caused wrongful loss to the State by not paying Stamp duty - Held, when Court passes the decree on the basis of admission by holding the suit as genuine then it is not known as to how the accused cheated the State by allegedly causing wrongful loss of stamp duty - Summoning order set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 542 (P&H)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.451 - Criminal trespass into a dwelling house with intention to commit an offence - Offender not successful in committing the offence - Held, accused is even then liable for offence u/s 451 IPC. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 533 (Kerala)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.451 - Criminal trespass into a dwelling house with the intention of committing an offence - Offence committed - Accused is liable not only for an offence u/s 451 but also for those offences which he committed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 533 (Kerala)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Death due to asphyxia due to drowning - Deceased married with accused about 10 years before her death - Deposition of brothers of deceased that their sister told them that accused tortured her - Evidence of brothers of deceased is inadmissible in evidence u/s 32(1) of Evidence Act - No evidence on record to be admitted in law to be used against accused for offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC - Conviction and sentence set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 687 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A - Essential ingredients of the offence u/s 498-A IPC are : (i) That there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was subjected to such cruelty by - the husband of that woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 631 (S.C.)
Injuries on the person of accused
Injuries on the person of accused - Non explanation - Assumes importance when evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where defence gives a version which appears to be more probable from one of the prosecution case. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 430 (Allahabad)
Insecticides Act, 1968
Insecticides Act, 1968, S.30(3) - Stockist and dealer - Sample taken from sealed container - Nothing to indicate that insecticide was not properly stored - It is the manufacturer and not the stockist/dealer/distributor who is liable - Proceedings quashed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 606 (P&H)
Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Ss.6 & 68, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, R.22 - Juvenile - Opinion of Medical Board - Margin of error two years on either side - However, it depends upon each case as to whether margin of two years is to considered on the lower, upper or average age which is to be taken into consideration. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 434 (S.C.)
Motive
Motive - If the case is based on direct evidence, motive part is totally insignificant. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 470 (M.P.) (DB)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.15 - Conscious possession - Sitting on poppy husk bags - Not conscious possession if the residence or place from where the recovery is made, is not the ownership of accused. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 458 (P&H) (DB)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.18 - Opium - Recovery of 1 kg. - Conviction on the testimony of official witnesses only - Their credibility not shaken - Merely because independent witness is not examined or seal not handed over to independent witnesses, it cannot be said that appellant is falsely implicated especially when testimony of official witnesses inspires confidence. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 428 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.18 - Opium - Recovery of 1 kg. - Protracted trial for 11 years - No offence committed after registration of the case or earlier thereto - Appellant sole bread earner of the family and has large family to support - Sentence reduced from 3 years RI to 1-1/2 years RI - Sentence of fine maintained. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 428 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.20 - Charas - Recovery of 750 grams - Accused convicted and sentenced to undergo sentence of 7-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- - Recovery non commercial - No case pending against accused - Protracted trial of 8 years - Sentence reduced to three years and sentence of fine maintained. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 562 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.20 - Evidence of police officials only - Accused can be convicted on the testimony of police officials if it inspires confidence and is free from blemish of contradictions, discrepancies and improvements - In that event it is not necessary to join independent witness. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 562 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.21 - Protracted trial for seven years - Appellants in their youth - Appellants did not commit any offence before registration of the present case or after grant of bail - Appellants not involved in the trade of narcotic substance - Quantity recovered non commercial - Sentence reduced to one year - Sentence of fine maintained. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 648 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.22 - Heroin - Recovery of 2 Kg. - Conviction on the basis of confession made to Custom Officer - Custom Officer is invested the power u/s NDPS Act with powers analogous to those exercised by a police officer but does not become a Police Officer u/s 25 of Evidence Act - Conviction upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 513 (P&H)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.41, 42(d) - Secret information - Raid at brick kiln at night time - It is incumbent for the IO to put in writing the reasons for not obtaining the search warrant or authorization - Provision of S.42(d) not complied - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 458 (P&H) (DB)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42 - Information received in police station - Sufficient time to take action - Failure to record in writing or failure to send copy to superior officer - It is a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of S.42 of the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 444 (S.C.)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42 - Information received - Has to be recorded in writing and immediately a copy is to be sent to the superior officer - Information received while on patrol duty which calls for immediate action then information be recorded in writing and to sent to superior officer when practical - Writing down the information should precede the entry, search and seizure which can be postponed in emergent situations - Total non compliance of S.42(1) & 42(2) is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation is acceptable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 444 (S.C.)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42 - Total non compliance of S.42(1) and 42(2) is impermissible - Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation is acceptable. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 444 (S.C.)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Insufficient funds - Funds can be checked online at the bank branch where it was presented and cheque need not to be sent to the bank branch from where it was issued - Offence is committed when it is found that there are insufficient funds. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 661 (Gujarat)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued and duly served - No action taken on non payment - Notice issued for the second time - Complaint filed on the basis of second notice - Cause of action to file complaint on non-payment despite issue of notice, arises once - Another cause of action would not arise on repeated dishonour on re-presentation - Complaint is not within time - Order taking cognizance set aside. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 618 (S.C.)618
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Second cause of action is barred - Process issued quashed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 488 (Bombay)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.256 - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint for default without recording reason as to whether personal attendance of complainant was essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason - Complaint remanded back to trial Court for decision in accordance with law. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 468 (H.P.)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.391 - Dishonour of cheque - Additional evidence at appellate stage - Fact sought to be proved by way of additional evidence admitted in reply to the application - Instead of allowing the application its effect be examined by Court during course of arguments. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 531 (P&H)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.391 - Dishonour of cheque - Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to during pendency of appeal against conviction for recall of witness to prove that complainant firm is not registered under Punjab Money Lenders Act or with the Reserve Bank of India and as such is not competent to lend money in cash - Fact that firm is not registered admitted in reply to the application - Held, its effect to be examined by Appellate Court during course of arguments - Order dismissing application, upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 531 (P&H)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against - Death of accused during pendency of revision - Revision does not abate - Revisional court to modify sentence imposed against accused by courts below as might be warranted to advance ends of justice. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 384 (Kerala)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Accused borrowed loan - Loan amount not established - Presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 544 (Karnataka)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque bearing signatures of accused on its face and also on reverse of it - Goes to show that the said cheque was intended to be used as a 'self cheque' and not issued by accused to any other person - Writing on cheque not in the hand of accused - Account in Bank in the name of complainant was opened at the introduction of an Advocate to whom a blank cheque is alleged to have been given - All these facts and circumstances clearly go to show that cheque was not delivered to the complainant by accused so as draw presumption u/s 139 of the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 544 (Karnataka)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 471 - Cheating by making complainant believe that accused can get the land allotted and extracted money from him - Accused not arrested accepting illegal gratification to give some assistance in discharge of duties in his official capacity - Held, offence u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act not made - It is offence of cheating which is made out - Conviction u/s 420 & 471 IPC confirmed. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 540 (Allahabad)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Ss.13(2) and 20 - Illegal gratification - Recovery of tainted money - Plea that two FIR's had already been lodged against complainant who could not be treated as trustworthy witness - Held, mere registration of criminal cases, prior to or after the occurrence, against a witness does not affect his credibility so far as the case in which he is a witness is concerned - Held, complainant is a competent witness. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 621 (P&H)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.13(2), 20 - Illegal gratification - Recovery of tainted currency notes - Plea of forcible thrusting money in pocket - Not acceptable as complainant had no enmity with the accused and accused made no complaint against complainant and vigilance officials to higher authority - Order of conviction and sentence upheld. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 621 (P&H)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19 - Public servant - Sanction for prosecution - Offence committed while in service at Delhi - Thereafter became employee of U.P. Govt. - Prosecution launched with prior sanction of Lt. Governor of Delhi - Prior permission of State of U.P. to prosecute and investigation is not required. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 582 (Delhi)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, S.11(1)(d), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.451, 457 - Transportation of 2000 goats and sheeps in eight trucks in cramped manner denying them food and water - Offence of cruelty to animals is made out - Interim custody given to owner of goats and sheeps. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 553 (S.C.)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss.7, 16 - Use of aluminium foil on food article like sweets or chocolates is not injurious to health nor there is any statutory prohibition of using such foil. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 704 (Gujarat)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss.11, 20 - A private purchaser can get the food article analysed from a public analyst - However, before doing so he has to inform the vendor at the time of purchase that he intends to have the article analysed - Procedure prescribed by S.11(1), (2) & (3) is applicable to such purchase and taking of sample as well. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 421 (S.C.)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.13(2) - No explanation for inordinate delay in launching prosecution and intimating accused of his right u/s 13(2) of the Act - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 537 (Orissa)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.20 - Proviso - Prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted by a purchaser only if the report of the public analyst is produced alognwith the complaint. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 421 (S.C.)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R.14 - Sample - Procedure prescribed for collection of sample of food by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis is not an empty formality - R.14 explicitly provides that samples of food shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 537 (Orissa)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R.14 - Sample - Testimony of PW1 that sample was taken in polythene bag whereas testimony of PW2 that sample was taken in a bottle and went to extent of asserting that he himself cleaned bottles - Vital discrepancy not examined by Courts below - Prosecution failed to prove compliance of mandate of R.14 - Accused acquitted. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 537 (Orissa)
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 II, 149 - Conviction u/s 304 II read with S.149 IPC - Appellant secured a Doctorate degree and employed as a Senior Assistant Professor in the Department of Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu - Conduct and attainment of appellant after his involvement in the offence justifies his release on probation - Accused ordered to be released on probation. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 517 (S.C.)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Applicability of the Act to the State of Punjab - It is a Central Act which has come into force on 1.11.2007 and extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir - Held, this Act is applicable to the Sate of Punjab being a Central Act and no separate notification is required to be issued, by the State of Punjab, in this regard. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.2(a), 2(b), 12) -- Run away marriage - Police protection - Girl aged 16 years 2 months at the time of marriage - As per S.3 of Majority Act, 1875 every person domiciled in India attains the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before - Girl who has not attained the age of 18 years is a child within meaning of S.2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Marriage of a girl who has not attained 18 years of age is a child marriage within the meaning of S.2(b) of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act - Thus marriage of a girl who has not attained the age of majority on the date of marriage is void as per S.12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 which came into force on 1.11.2007 - Marriage declared void. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.2(a), 2(b), 12 -- Run away marriage - Police protection - Girl aged 16 years 2 months at the time of marriage - Marriage of a girl who was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage is void as per provision of S.2(a) and 12 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which came into force on 1.11.2007 - Police protection cannot be provided to a couple whose marriage is void. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.10, 11, 15 - Marriage of a girl below 18 years of age and a boy below 21 years of age is a child marriage and is void within meaning of S.12 of the act - Any person who performs, conducts or directs or abets any child marriage is liable for punishment and such offence is cognizable and non bailable - State directed to take appropriate action by lodging the case against the persons who are responsible for the performance of the child marriage.(Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.10, 11, 12 & 15). 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Provision of law
Provision of law - Mandatory or directory - Prohibitive or negative words are ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision, although not conclusive - Court has to examine carefully the purpose of such provision and the consequences that may follow from non-observance thereof - If the context does not show nor demands otherwise, the text of a statutory provision couched in a negative form ordinarily has to be read in the form of command. 374 2010(1) Criminal Court Case (S.C.)
Punjab Excise Act, 1914
Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.61(1)(c), Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 - Distilling illicit liquor - Protracted trial for more than 12 years - Accused not a previous convict - Probation granted - Accused ordered to be released on probation of two years. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 417 (P&H)
Run away marriage
Run away marriage - Police protection - Girl aged 16 years 2 months at the time of marriage - As per S.3 of Majority Act, 1875 every person domiciled in India attains the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before - Girl who has not attained the age of 18 years is a child within meaning of S.2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Marriage of a girl who has not attained 18 years of age is a child marriage within the meaning of S.2(b) of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act - Thus marriage of a girl who has not attained the age of majority on the date of marriage is void as per S.12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 which came into force on 1.11.2007 - Marriage declared void.(Majority Act, 1875, S.3, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.2(a), 2(b), 12). 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H) 3 3
Run away marriage - Police protection - Girl aged 16 years 2 months at the time of marriage - Marriage of a girl who was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage is void as per provision of S.2(a) and 12 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which came into force on 1.11.2007 - Police protection cannot be provided to a couple whose marriage is void.(Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Ss.2(a), 2(b), 12). 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 678 (P&H)
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) - Mere presence of family members, including resident servant is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 485 (Bombay)
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) - Offence committed in a private place - However, when remarks made with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, are audible and/or if members of public have viewed the incident, even if the incident occurred at a private place, such as the courtyard of a house, it would constitute an offence under the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 485 (Bombay)
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(x) - "Within public view" - Meaning - Means that offence should take place in view of the "public" - If no member of the public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks, then even if the place is a "public place" or a place "visible to the public", it does not attract the ingredients of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 485 (Bombay)
Witness
Witness - A parrot like deposition after a long lapse of time smacks of tutoring and some differences in fact advance the credibility of the witness. 2010(1) Criminal Court Case 505 (S.C.)
|
