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: 20-May-2011

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.

Judgement:
CRIMINAL MISC WRIT PETITION NO 24225 OF 2009 


Amar Singh................v...............State of U.P and others 


Criminal Misc Writ Petition No 4909 of 2010 

Shiv Kant Tripathi........V ............State of U.P and others 

Hon Imtiyaz Murtaza J 
Hon. S.S. Tiwari, J 


(Delivered by Hon Imtiyaz Murtaza, J) 


In the writ petition preferred by petitioner Amar Singh has mounted onslaught on the FIR dated 15.10.2009 registered at case crime no 458 of 2009 under section 420, 467, 471, 120 B IP, sections 7/8/9/13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at police Station Babu Purwa Kanpur Nagar and sought quashing of the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 

In the second petition preferred by petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi, the relief sought in this petition is for a writ of mandamus directing Enforcement Directorate arrayed as respondent no 4 to take up the investigation of case crime no 458 of 2009 registered at PS Babu Purwa Distt Kanpur Nagar and investigate the same in accordance with Law attended with further relief of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Cell Economic offences Wing as also the Enforcement Directorate to submit such periodical reports as may be deemed fit as to the stage, status and manner of investigation to this Court and also for direction to complete the investigation within such period as may be directed by the Court. 

The allegations in the FIR under challenge in writ petition preferred by petitioner Amar Singh, pertain to the period when the petitioner was the Chairman of the U.P Development Council in the year 2003. The office of Chairman was said to be equal in rank to a Cabinet Minister. The first part of the allegations substantially is that the petitioner while holding the office of Chairman, misused his official position and awarded various Government contracts worth thousands of crores to companies owned and controlled by him and he also received kick-backs in the form of commission. The second part of the allegation is that the petitioner indulged in money laundering business by creating a web of shell companies. It is alleged that the major share holders of M/S Pankaja Arts and Credit Private Limited and M/S Sarvottam Caps Limited is the wife of the petitioner and close family associate namely Sri Amtabh Bachchan, a noted cine artist and former member of Parliament. It is further alleged that in all there are six companies which are under the control of the petitioner but at the same time, they are not involved in any active business and further that as many as 41 companies merged with M/S Pankaja Arts and Credit Private Limited and M/S Sarvottam Caps Limited by orders of Kolkata High Court dated 31.12.2003 and 31.1.2005. It is further alleged that the aforesaid 41 Companies were shell companies with little or no business. It is further alleged that amalgamation process was a deception and by this process the companies in which the petitioner had controlling shares, were enriched by wealth of around 400 crores. By this reckoning, it is alleged that the petitioner came in possession of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is further alleged that it would thus be eloquent that the petitioner misused his position by indulging in money laundering business and for this purpose he conspired with other Directors, officials and statutory authorities. 

Sri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunwar Sidharth Singh, appearing for petitioner Amar Singh, argued the matter at prolix length. On the other hand, Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, appearing for Shiv Kant Tripathi, petitioner in Writ Petition No 4909 of 2010 advanced his submissions at elaborate length. We have also heard Additional Solicitor General, Government Advocate and other counsel assisting them. We have also been taken through the materials on record in the course of arguments. 

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner namely, Amar Singh, while assailing the allegations in the FIR, has set out summary of own facts which are that the petitioner was born and had received his education at Calcutta and he set up his business in Calcutta as well. It is also stated that the petitioner has his dwelling place at Calcutta at 35 Rowland Road and he is also registered there for income Tax purposes. It is also stated that barring EDCL Limited and Ester India Chemicals Ltd, all other companies mentioned in the FIR in which the petitioner had share-holdings are registered at Kolkata at the address (1) Azimganj House Block 1, Ist Floor 7 Camac Street Kolkata. It is also stated that out of 6 companies alleged to be under control of the petitioner, only Ester India Chemicals Ltd is filing its income Tax Returns at New Delhi while other five companies as mentioned below are filing their Annual returns at Kolkota. (1) M/S EDCL Ltd, (2) M/S Pankaja Art and Credit Pvt Ltd, (c) M/S Sarvottam Caps Ltd , (d) M/S EDCL Power Projects Ltd and M/S EDCL infrastructure. It is also stated that the above fact would be borne out from the perusal of the documents filed by the informant alongwith the FIR. It is also stated that the first company in which the petitioner had shareholding was registered in the year 1984 which is known as M/S Ester India Chemicals Ltd. The other companies namely, M/S Pankaja Art and Credit Pvt Ltd and M/S Sarvottam Caps Ltd and EDCL Ltd were all incorporated in the year 1992, 1995 and 1995 respectively. It is also stated that similarly M/S EDCL Power Projects Ltd was incorporated in the year 2002. It is thus submitted that all the aforesaid companies were incorporated before the formation of Samajwadi Party Government in the State of U.P which came into power on 29th August 2003. It is explained that only one company known as EDCL Infrastructure came to be incorporated after the formation of the Government in the year 2004. It is also stated that 41 companies which are stated to have merged in M/S Panakaja Arts and Credit Pvt Ltd and M/S Sarvottam Caps Ltd are the companies which are incorporated in Kolkata It is also stated that the 41 companies as aforesaid had applied for merger sometime in 2004 and Feb 2005 and for that purpose company petition was presented in the Kolkata High Court which was allowed vide order dated Sept 20th, 2004 and Sept 7th, 2005. By that order, the transferee companies were allowed to convene separate meetings of equity shareholders for the purposes of considering the proposed scheme of amalgamation and in consequence, the companies had issued notices and reports were submitted which amply manifested that the proposed scheme of amalgamation had been approved by the requisite majority of the equity share holders. It is also stated that the Central Govt through its Advocate had also indicated that it had no objection to the proposed scheme of amalgamation. After completion of the above process, the Kolkata High Court approved the proposed scheme of amalgamation and declared it to be binding with effect from 1.1.2004 and 31.1.2005 respectively. It is further mentioned that allotment of share to the share holders of the transferor company had been done strictly as approved by the Kolkata High Court. 

Assailing the bonafide of the informant, the learned Counsel has stated that the informant had given fake address and mobile number. By this reckoning, the learned counsel submitted that the FIR has not been lodged with any bonafide intention. The learned counsel also called in question the jurisdiction of PS Babu Purwa. The learned counsel also submitted that the U.P.D.C was constituted on 15.10.2003 to advise the Government on matters of economic policies and development and it was not given any power to award any Government contracts. Drawing attention to the allegations as contained in the FIR it is stated that no allegation has been made that the UPDC was conferred any power to award any govt contracts. It is also submitted that UPDC has not awarded any govt contract or other contract to any industrialist. He also submitted that the UPDC with all its members acted collectively and all resolution passed by UPDC were only recommendatory, general and policy related and further that Sri Atul Gupta who was secretary Industries Department in the said Government was the ex officio secretary of the UPDC and even the advisory opinions of the UPDC were routed to Govt through Sri Atul Gupta. 

The learned counsel also submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the cabinet decision was widely aired that UP police had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the matter was transferred to Kolkata Police. The Kolkata Police after receipts of papers, returned the entire matter on 23.10.2009 observing that the matter was not worth registering. It is thereafter, the UP Police swung into action and commenced investigation. It is also alleged that Dinesh Tripathi who was till then under suspension was reinstated and he was given charge of PS Babu Purwa and the very next day Shivakant Tripathi author of the FIR got the FIR lodged at PS Babu Purwa. He also adverted attention to calls details of conversations between the complainant and the SHO Babu Purwa between Sept 10 and Oct 15, 2009. He also referred to calls details of conversation between the complainant and a top official of CM Secretariat. It is alleged that informant made 23 calls to Navneet Sehgal an official of CM Secretariat and the said bureaucrat called the informant 33 times within a span of 35 days. He also referred to criminal antecedents and criminal cases registered against the informant at PS Chakeri Kanpur. Lastly it is argued that the allegations made in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and it is nothing but a desperate attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner by making baseless allegations. He also alluded to political rivalries and the entire facts have been concocted to malign the petitioner and for settling political scores and therefore, it is submitted that the FIR is clearly an act of malice and fraud and it is liable to be quashed. 

In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel relied upon following decisions. 
(i) State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal and others 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335. 
(ii) Mohd Ibrahim and others v State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 
(iii) State of Bihar v Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 
(iv) MCD v Ram Kishan Rohatgi AIR 1983 SC 67 
(v) Moti Singh Gambhu Singh v State AIR 1961 Guj 177. 

As stated supra, subsequent to the aforesaid petition, the informant Shiv Kant Tripathi also filed a writ petition in this Court which is docketed in this Court as Criminal Misc Writ Petition No 4909 of 2010. The relief sought in this petition is for a writ of mandamus directing Enforcement Directorate arrayed as respondent no 4 to take up the investigation of case crime no 458 of 2009 registered at PS Babu Purwa Distt Kanpur Nagar and investigate the same in accordance with Law attended with further relief of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Cell Economic offences Wing as also the Enforcement Directorate to submit such periodical reports as may be deemed fit as to the stage, status and manner of investigation to this Court and also for direction to complete the investigation within such period as may be directed by the Court. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner namely Sri Tripathi has cited certain instances which according to him, which generated doubts about shady dealings. The instances are: 

(i) that Amar Singh formed a never ending chain through the web of companies with complex cross holdings coupled with amalgamations which helped in erasing the trail and by this reckoning, it was not only an attempt at converting black money into legitimate money but involved appropriating outlandsih sums of money that could not have been legitimately earned by him through his known and admitted sources of income. 

(ii) that in respect of M/S Energy Development Company ltd a flagship company of Amar Singh, it is stated that on scrutiny it was found to be registered in Bangalore with Amar Singh as its Chairman cum Managing Director with his wife as one of the Directors . It is stated that aforesaid company for the first year i.e 2005-06 is shown to have earned Rs 2.49 crores during financial year 2005-06 and out of this amount, the company has shown to have expended only a sum of Rs 38.30 lacs under the head "Salary and Allowances. In the next financial year 2006-07, the company has shown to have spent Rs 97.28 lakhs on salary and allowances. It is stated that it is unbelievable that the company would be able to sustain experienced staff on such meagre salary and allowances The aforesaid amount would not be sufficient to meet the salary and allowance of an experienced CEO not to speak of other experienced staff. 

(iii) That for the financial year 2006-07 the company is shown to have earned contractual income to the tune of Rs 52.40 crores. It is stated that such a huge amount cannot be legitimately earned by the company with its limited resources. 

(iv) That upon closely scrutinizing the share holding pattern in the above six companies it is noticeable that besides individuals the companies had in all 23 corporate share holders excluding 4. From further dissection it is stated it appeared that a majority of them were non existent companies 

(v) That the petitioner reiterated that all the companies which were amalgamated were in fact shell companies with little or no business activities. 

(vi) That from analysis of financial statements of the companies, bitter truth was discovered that most of these companies were either incurring losses or earning negligible income and yet the shares of these companies were subscribed at preposterous premiums. 

(vii) It is also stated that amalgamation process was a mere deception inasmuch as it brooks no dispute that the transferee company stands to gain everything from the deal while the transferor company does not stand to benefit in any manner whatsoever and the same is the case with almost all the amalgamated companies. 

The distillate of exhaustive enquiries with professional assistance as averred by petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi in the petition is as under> 

(a) The entire modus operandi is a racket which is very deep rooted in our economy. It had started long back and is prevalent till date. Parallel economy is a well known phenomenon in the country. 

(b) the three amalgamations consisting of 55 companies has been undertaken by Amar Singh from the year 2003 to 2008. In other words, Amar Singh got control management and economic benefit of this huge amount of money. 

(c) that the amalgamations have been carried out with companies having no business relations or being connected with Amar Singh in any way. 

(d) that Amar Singh in the entire operation has introduced his ill earned wealth either at the time of issue of share capital at a premium of amalgamating companies or at the time of amalgamation and this can be unravelled only through a thorough investigation. 

(e) that Directors of the companies were either the operators of these companies or their close associates. In certain cases, income tax authorities found that the directors of these companies were either drivers or peons of the operators etc. 

In this matter, it would appear that by means of the order dated 5.12.2009 the Division Bench headed by Hon Yatindra Singh J passed orders staying arrest of the petitioner till next date of listing or till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.PC whichever is earlier attended with direction that the matter would be investigated by people having expertise in accounting and that the matter would be referred to the appropriate authority under the Money laundering Act or any other Central act for taking appropriate action. 

In the writ petition filed by Shiv Kant Tripathi, the Court observed in its order dated 23.8.2010 that according to the averments in para 12 of the counter affidavit, papers and materials have been entrusted to Enforcement Directorate New Delhi. The Court taking notice of the statement made across the bar by the Addl Solicitor General observed that papers have not yet been made available to Enforcement Directorate. 

It is a settled principle that the High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary power and one of the grounds against the exercise of the discretion in such cases would be that the relief sought by the petitioner is not capable of being established in the summary proceeding under Article 226 because it requires a detailed examination of the evidence. The object of Art 226 is the enforcement and not the establishment of a right. 

In Divine Retreat Centre v State of Kerala and others AIR 2008 SC 1614, the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chap. XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code. Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, the informant's remedy lies under Ss. 190, 200, Cr. P. C., but a Writ Petition in such a case is not to be entertained. (Paras 35, 36). 

This Court by means of its order dated 5.12.2009, the Court issued following directions. 

" We wish to clarify that it will be open to respondents no 1 to 3 to : 
(1) get the matter investigated by special cell consisting of people who are expert in accounting. 

(2) refer the matter to the appropriate authority under the Money Laundering Act or any other Central Act for taking appropriate action therein. In case any such reference is made, this order will not prevent the authorities to proceed to inquire, investigate, (including arrest of the petitioner) under those Acts."

In connected writ petition no 24225 of 2009, the Division Bench headed by Hon Amar Saran, J passed the order dated 23.8.2010 in which it was noted on the basis of statement made by Addl Solicitor General that according to his information, the Enforcement Directorate of the Central Government has not yet received any such papers attended with direction that State and Central Government may clarify the aforesaid matter about handing over papers to the Enforcement Directorate and about the progress of investigation on that date. Even at the time of reserving the order, the papers were said to have not been entrusted to the Enforcement Directorate. 

As observed supra referring to the order passed by the earlier Bench of this Court, whereby liberty was given to the respondents 1 to 3 to have the matter investigated thoroughly by Special Cell consisting of people who are expert in accounting. The choice it would appear, fell on Enforcement Directorate which was already arrayed as respondent no 3 in the connected writ petition. The matter ever-since then has been hanging in balance inasmuch as the matter is stuck at the level of handing over of papers to the said Agency. 

The first and foremost argument advanced across the bar is that all the companies being registered at Kolkota, and carrying on their venture in Kolkata, the FIR lodged at Babu Ka Purwa Police station cannot be acted upon or investigated by the U.P Police. It is further argued that after registration of the case at PS Babu Ka Purwa Kanpur Nagar, it was realized that the cognizance of the matter cannot be taken in U.P and hence the Cabinet took a decision of transferring the matter to Kolkata Police. He also argued that Kolkata Police after receipts of papers, returned the entire matter on 23.10.2009 observing that the matter was not worth registering and it is only thereafter that the U.P Police again galvanized into action. In this connection, the learned counsel also argued that it is now not open for the U.P police to embark upon investigation in the matter as the companies in question are registered in Kolkata and are doing business from there. The learned counsel also argued that all mergers of companies took place in Kolkata and on this count also, the jurisdiction does not lie in the State of U.P. It is further argued that merger is a judicial proceeding and the same cannot be construed to be an offence. The learned Government Advocate denied that any decision as alleged by taken to transfer the papers to Kolkata Police. In para 20 it is averred that the decision to transfer the investigation to Kolkata was taken by Smt Neera Rawat Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Supdt of Police Kanpur Nagar for which she wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police Kolkata on 17.10.2009 to take up the investigation. However, the papers were returned to the said police officer by Kolkata police on 22.10.2009 and it was thereafter that the matter was referred to the State Government to entrust the matter to any competent agency whereupon the investigation was entrusted by the State Govt to the Economic offences Wing C.I.D UP. However, in the counter affidavit, the deponent refused to comment upon press report to which learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Amar Singh copiously referred. In the rejoinder affidavit, this fact is much highlighted that there was no averment that Amar Singh as Chairman awarded any contracts and hence no offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is ex facie made out. 

There is no gainsaying of the fact that the genesis of the allegations relate to the period when Amar Singh held the office of Chairman U.P. Development council in the year 2003 and the brunt of allegations is that he misused the office and laundered the money through web of companies created by him by abusing his official position. In the light of the facts on record, it would suffice to say that the genesis of the entire matter is in the State of U.P. 

Yet another aspect which lends cogency to the fact that the matter can be investigated by the police of State of U.P is that the FIR lodged includes section 120 B IPC covered with section 120 A IPC. The allegations are against the petitioner namely Amar Singh that as a Chairman UPSIDC, he committed all the overt and covert acts covered by section 120 A IPC. 

In connection with the contention pertaining to jurisdictions we would like to refer to a decision of Apex Court in Satvinder Kaur V State o(Govt of NCT of Delhi) (AIR 1999 SC 3596 in which the Apex Court substantially observed as under: 

"F.I.R cannot be quashed by High Court under S. 482 on ground that police station officer of particular police station (Delhi in instant case) was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable under S. 498-A, I.P.C. arose at Patiala. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the Courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an Investigating Officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that police station officer of particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of S. 178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that S.H.O., Police Station, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, S. 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate." 

It would thus transpire that merely on the ground that all the companies were registered at Kolkota and that merger of the companies was also allowed judicially by Kolkata High Court, would not divest the courts from taking cognizance of the matter or the police of State of U.P from investigating into the matter. 

The next submission of the learned counsel revolves round the relief for quashing of the entire proceeding pursuant to the FIR lodged at police Station Babu Ka Purwa Kanpur Nagar on various grounds which included assailing of bonafide of the informant urging that the informant had given fake address and mobile number attended with submission that the FIR had not been lodged with any bonafide intention again followed by submissions that the allegations made in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable and there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and it is nothing but a desperate attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner by making baseless allegations. The learned counsel also alluded to political rivalries and that the entire facts have been concocted to malign the petitioner and it is for settling political scores that the FIR was lodged and it was clearly an act of malice and fraud and it is liable to be quashed. As stated supra, in the connected writ petition, the petitioner gave substance of exhaustive enquiries with professional assistance has been cited as under> 

(a) The entire modus operandi is a racket which is very deep rooted in our economy. It had started long back and is prevalent till date. Parallel economy is a well known phenomenon in the country. 

(b) The three amalgamations consisting of 55 companies has been undertaken by Amar Singh from the year 2003 to 2008. In other words, Amar Singh got control management and economic benefit of this huge amount of money. 

(c) that the amalgamations have been carried out with companies having no business relations or being connected with Amar Singh in any way. 

(d) That Amar Singh in the entire operation has introduced his ill earned wealth either at the time of issue of share capital at a premium of amalgamating companies or at the time of amalgamation and this can be unravelled only through a thorough investigation. 

(e) That Directors of the companies were either the operators of these companies or their close associates. In certain cases, income tax authorities found that the directors of these companies were either drivers or peons of the operators etc. 

The allegations made are serious and it cannot be said that ex facie the allegations do not make out any case for investigation. Rather, from a close scrutiny of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the entire matter requires thorough probe in order to get at the truth of the matter. 

In connection with the above contentions, we would like to refer to the two decisions of the Apex Court in T. Vengama Naidu v T. Doraswamy Naidu (2007) 12 SCC 93. 

In T. VengamaNaidu (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: 

"7. It cannot be disputed that a private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate who had made over the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. That order of the Magistrate has not been challenged. On the basis of that order the police registered a crime probably treating the complaint as the FIR. It is settled law that an FIR and the consequent investigation cannot be quashed unless there is no offence spelt out from the same. The law in this respect is settled that the said FIR has to be taken on its face value and then it is to be examined as to whether it spells out the offences complained of. There was no question of considering the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR at that stage or testing the veracity of allegations. In this case, admittedly, the investigation was in progress. The police had also not reported back to the Magistrate the result of their investigation. Under such circumstances, the FIR could have been quashed only and only if there appeared to be no offence spelt out therein. A glance at the FIR suggests that there were serious allegations against both the accused, respondents 1 and 2 herein inasmuch as it was specifically alleged that in spite of the revocation of the General Power of Attorney and in spite of a specific notice to that effect by the complainant to the first respondent, the first respondent went on dishonestly to execute the sale deed in favour of his own daughter on the basis of the said revoked General Power of Attorney. It is alleged against the first respondent that he had no right over the property and yet he had executed a document in favour of the second respondent without any authority with an intention to cause loss to the complainant and to cheat him. It was alleged against the second respondent that she was well aware that the first respondent was not competent to sell the property so as to defraud and cheat the complainant and, therefore, she also was liable to be punished under Sections 464, 423, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. It was not for the learned Judge at the stage of investigation to examine the nature of the transaction and further to examine as to whether any offence was actually committed by the accused persons or not. At that stage the only inquiry which could have been made was as to whether the complaint or the FIR did contain allegations of any offence. Whether those offences were made out, even prima facie, could not have been examined at that stage as the investigation was pending then. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned Single Judge that the FIR was liable to be quashed. We also do not agree with the learned Judge that there are no ingredients of the offences complained of in the FIR and this was a civil dispute. However, we do not wish to go deeper into that question. Our prima facie examination satisfies us that there were ingredients of offences complained of and, therefore, at that stage the High Court could not have quashed the FIR as well as the investigation. The appeal, therefore, has to be allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge." (Emphasis supplied) 


In view of what has been ruled in the aforesaid decision by the Apex Court, we find no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel that FIR does not ex facie disclose an offence. 

The next submission revolves round mala-fide and political rivalries. It is stated that the informant has been set up out of political vendetta. The ex -catehdra decision on this point is State of Haryana V Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604. Para 114 of the said decision being relevant is quoted below. 

114. No doubt, there was no love lost between Ch. Bhajan Lal and Dharam Pal. Based on this strained relationship, it has been then emphatically urged by Mr. K. Parasaran that the entire allegations made in the complaint due to political vendetta are not only scurrilous and scandalous but also tainted with mala fides, vitiating the entire proceeding. As it has been repeatedly pointed out earlier the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation is not yet proceeded with except some preliminary effort taken on the date of the registration of the case, that is, on 21-11-1987. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, we are sure, the investigation will say so. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, we are unable to see any force in the contention that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. In this connection, the following view expressed by Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288 at page 318: (AIR 1987 SC 877 at p. 891) may be referred to 

"'It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant." (Emphasis supplied) 


In view of the above discussion, we find no substance in the submissions that the proceeding is liable to be quashed on grounds of malafide and political rivalries. 

Coming to the decisions cited across the bar by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would suffice to say that we have studied the ratio flowing from the decisions very scrupulously. The ratio flowing from the said decisions, we must say with all humility, cannot be imported for application in the context of the disputation as involved in these two petitions. 

In the above conspectus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner namely Amar Singh for the relief of quashing the F.I.R registered at case crime No 458 of 2009 under section 420, 467, 471, 120 B IP, sections 7/8/9/13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at Police Station Babu Ka Purwa Kanpur Nagar fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

Now the question that crops up for consideration is whether it is a fit case constituting special reasons for being referred for investigating to Special Cell. It is well enunciated by a stream of decisions of the Apex Court that the High Court can direct an investigation by the Special Cell without the consent of the State concerned when matters related to corruption in public administration, misconduct by the bureaucracy, fabrication of official records and misappropriation of public funds. 

In Secretary M.I and R.E Services U.P v Sahngoo Ram Arya AIR 2002 SC 2225, the Apex Court observed that while none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause. The Apex Court also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2979 which in paragraph 174 it was has held thus: 

"The other direction, namely, 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". 

In State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2910 2SCC (Cri), the Apex Court in para 70 observed as under: 

"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 necessary 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 para 71 of the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court concurred with the view taken in Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (Supra). Para 71 being also relevant is excerpted below. 

"In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P v. Sahngoo Ram Arya this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations." 

Amongst the allegations are the allegations of money laundering as well. the petitioner in the second petition has termed the companies as shell companies. Shell companies mean those companies which disguise the true owner of money. The methods by which money may be laundered are varied and can range in sophistication from simple to complex. The proceeds of crime are made to appear legitimate. According to one estimate, the money laundered each year is in billions and posses a significant policy concern. Money laundering often occurs in three steps: first, cash is introduced into the financial system by some means, the second involves carrying out complex financial transactions in order to camouflage the illegal source and the final steps entails acquiring wealth generated from the transactions of the illicit funds. Money laundering poses a serious threat to financial system integrity. It may emerge as a parallel economic system within a nation controlled by a few. This may destabilize and perish a sound economy. Section 3 of the Act envisages; "Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. 

In the above perspective we are of the view that regard being had to the various materials on record and also considering the averments made in the writ petitions and also in counter and rejoinder affidavits, we are of the firm view that it is a pre-eminently fit case for exercise of extra-ordinary power and the matter needs thorough probe by Special Cell as the matter of has national ramifications. Regard being had to the fact that the companies which are alleged to be shell companies are registered in various States and therefore, the Enforcement Directorate being Central Agency shall be the appropriate Cell capable of carrying out thorough probe. It is therefore directed that the entire papers relating to this matter shall be entrusted to the Enforcement Directorate within 2 weeks and immediately after receipt of the papers the Enforcement Director shall commence investigation. The First Status report shall be submitted by the Enforcement Directorate within one month after receipt of papers. 

List this matter in the first week of July 2011 on which date the authorities that be shall appear in person and shall submit the first status report. 20/05/2011.

                   
                     

                     

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