• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

An Endeavour for Learning and Excellence Aano Bhadra Krtavo Yantu Vishwatah.(RIG VEDAM) "Let Noble Thoughts Come To Me From All Directions" Preface Sri G.Shivaiah requires very less introduction, at least for the prosecutors of Telugu Speaking states, wherein he worked as prosecutor right from APP to Addl.PP Gr-I. Suffice it to say that he was termed as an UNIVERSITY by one of the senior academician and Prosecutor. Sir developed friends for his excellence in academics, at all the places where he worked, what with prestigious organisations and advocates from those places, still contacting him, whenever they are in a fix, for solutions, and they are not disappointed at any time. I had the occasion of being in proximity with Sir, when sir was executing the responsibilities of Deputy Director of Prosecutions (Administration) Hyderabad, wherein I was fortunate to have had the opportunity of interacting with him on various academic pursuits. I am also fortunate that Sir was kind enough to honor my request to share some of outstanding precedents compiled by him and this book is his long cherished dream, which in fact Sir wanted to bring it in hardcopy by Dushera for the assistance of all prosecutors, but due to some constraints, the following soft copy is being released on this Dushera, I am confident that these precedents will pave way for easing the work of prosecutors all over. Grateful acknowledgment is here made to Ms Rita Lalchand and Sri G.Raghavendra, and all those who helped me in giving a shape to the dream of Sir, as it stands in this book. This work would not have reached its present form without their invaluable help. Hyderabad Date: 29/09/2017 L.H.Rajeshwer Rao. While due care is taken while preparing this information. The patrons are requested to verify and bring it to the notice of the concerned regarding any misprint or errors immediately, so as to bring it to the notice of all patrons. Needless to add that no responsibility for any result arising out of the said error shall be attributable to the publisher as the same is inadvertent. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JudgmEnts 1) 2000(2) ALT (CRI) 159 (KER) – BIJJU VS STATE OF KERALA The legal position that when an accused has been released on bail under Section 436 and later a non­bailable offence is added, even then the bail granted cannot be cancelled, unless there is misuse of liberty granted. Bail can be' cancelled only either under Section 439(2) or under Section 437(5) Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also the settled position of law that once bail is granted under Section 436 and a charge sheet for a non­bailable offence is also filed, bail cannot be cancelled unless there is misuse of liberty granted. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes no express provision for cancellation of bail granted under Section 436 and if at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, it is found that any person accused of a bailable offence is intimidating, bribing or tampering with prosecution witnesses or is attempting to Abscond, High Court has power to cause him to be' arrested, and commit him to custody for such period as High Court thinks fit. This, Jurisdiction of High Court springs from the overriding inherent powers of High Court and can .be invoked in exceptional cases only, when the High Court is satisfied that the ends of justice will be defeated unless the accused is committed to custody. The person committed to custody under the orders of High Court cannot ask for his release on bail under Section 436 Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court or Court of Session is conferred with power under Sub­section (2) of Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel bail in regard to cases of persons accused of any offences where such persons were admitted to bail under Chapter XXXIII of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2) 1996(1) ALT (CRL) 622 (DB) AP – MRS. IQBAL KAUR KWATRA VS THE DGP, RAJASTHAN STATE, JAIPUR AND OTHERS Sec 57 CRPC – in appropriate cases the court can award compensation to the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation moulding the relief in view of the changed circumstances in the larger interest of justice. Forcibly taking away and illegal detention of petitioner’s husband and not producing him before the Judicial Magistrate on the same day is in gross violation of fundamental rights. Such was an act of committing mental and psychological torture to the petitioner and her husband. Case observed to be fit for compensation Police Custody also includes “some form of Police Surveillance and restriction on movements of the person concerned by the Police”. The word custody does not necessarily mean detention or confinement. A person is said to be in custody as he comes in the hands of police officer. 3) 1984 CRLJ 1534 – KANAKLATHA SINHA VS NANI GOPAL SINGH BURMAN AND OTHERS Registrar of Firms is not a court within meaning of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. if therefore offences for which the opposite parties have been arraigned have been committed in relation to the proceeding before the Registrar of Firms no complaint of Registrar was necessary. 4) Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) vs Arun Kumar Bajoria 1998(1) ALD (Cri) 86, [1998] 91 Comp Cas 413 (SC), 1998 CriLJ 841, JT 1997(9) SC 379, 1997(6) SCALE 351, 1997(7) SCALE 258, (1998)1SCC52, [1997]5 SuppSCR 566 Considerations to be weighed with the court while dealing with a prayer for pre­arrest bail order are materially different from a post­arrest bail application. 5) AIR 2008 SC 251 – INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR VS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. Initiating Criminal Proceedings in a case of Civil Nature is mere abuse of process of Court. 6) 2013 (1) ALT (CRL) 17 AP – KOTLA HARI CHAKRAPANI REDDY & ANOTHER V/S THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Name of the person cannot be deleted as accused unless there is a judicial decisions. 7) 2008 CRLJ 148 – DR. SHASHIKANT D. KARNIK VS THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA THROUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU Noncompliance to Section 102 of Cr.P.C renders the entire order totally illegal and perverse. 8) 1992 CRLJ 527 – STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS. Sec 154 – 155 ­ 156 CRPC explained in detailed A noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court, on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. No one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable upto unfathomable cosmos. 9) 1992 CRLJ 561 – SMT. KAMALA BAI AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Power of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 CR.P.C is not limited by Section 37 of NDPS Act. 10) AIR 2004 SC 261 – BANTI @ GUDDU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH No ground to discard the evidence of witness because they relate to the deceased. It can be relied upon after careful scrutiny. Public Prosecutor is not obliged to examine all witnesses. Delayed examination of prosecution witnesses, not to render prosecution version suspect. It is true, the evidence of defence witness is not to be ignored by the Courts. Like any other witnesses, his evidence has to be tested on the touchstone of reliability, credibility and trustworthiness particularly when he attempts to resile and speak against records and in derogation of his earlier conduct and behavior. If after doing so, the court finds it to be untruthful, there is no legal bar in discarding it. If the lack of motive as pleaded by the accused is a factor, at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that there is no reason as to why PW1 would falsely implicate the accused persons. If there are too many witnesses on the same point, the public prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the Court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspects. That principle applies when there are too many witnesses cited, if they all had sustained injuries at the occurrence. The public prosecutor, in such cases is not obliged to examine all the injured witnesses. If he is satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it is open to him to inform the Court that he does not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category. This will help not only the prosecution in relieving itself of the strain of adducing repetitive evidence on the same point but also help the Court considerably in lessening the workload. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness, the prosecution version becomes suspect.

Load more

  239

Copy Link