//
archives

high court of delhi

This tag is associated with 9 posts

Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at “any stage” of “any enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any other proceedings” under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case.= Undoubtedly, an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision, however, in the instant case, the learned Trial Court prejudged the evidence of the witness sought to be examined by the appellant, and thereby cause grave and material prejudice to the appellant as regards her defence, which tantamounts to a flagrant violation of the principles of law governing the production of such evidence in keeping with the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. By doing so, the Trial Court reached the conclusion that the production of such evidence by the defence was not essential to facilitate a just decision of the case. Such an assumption is wholly misconceived, and is not tenable in law as the accused has every right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The court must examine whether such additional evidence is necessary to facilitate a just and proper decision of the case. The examination of the hand-writing expert may therefore be necessary to rebut the evidence of Rabi Lal Thapa (PW.40), and a request made for his examination ought not to have been rejected on the sole ground that the opinion of the hand-writing expert would not be conclusive. In such a situation, the only issue that ought to have been considered by the courts below, is whether the evidence proposed to be adduced was relevant or not. Identical is the position regarding the panchnama witness, and the court is justified in weighing evidence, only and only once the same has been laid before it and brought on record. Mr. B.B. Sharma, thus, may be in a position to depose with respect to whether the documents alleged to have been found, or to have been seized, were actually recovered or not, and therefore, from the point of view of the appellant, his examination might prove to be essential and imperative for facilitating a just decision of the case. The High Court has simply quoted relevant paragraphs from the judgment of the Trial Court and has approved the same without giving proper reasons, merely observing that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record was not essential for the purpose of arriving at a just decision. Furthermore, the same is not a case where if the application filed by the appellant had been allowed, the process would have taken much time. In fact, disallowing the said application, has caused delay. No prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine said three witnesses. In view of above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court, as well as of the High Court impugned before us, are set aside. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on the 17th of May, 2013, and the learned Trial Court is requested to fix a date on which the appellant shall produce the three witnesses, and the same may thereafter be examined expeditiously in accordance with law, and without causing any further delay. Needless to say that the prosecution will be entitled to cross examine them.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.709 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3271 of 2013) Natasha Singh …Appellant Versus CBI (State) …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned … Continue reading

Motive : 19. Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive of the accused to commit the crime. In a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the Crl.A.Nos. 939/2001, 27/2002 & 953/2001 Page 9 of 20 accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as the Court should ascertain as far as possible what was the immediate motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime. 20. No doubt in circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance but absence of it does not undermine credibility of the prosecution case. Motive remains hidden/ locked in the heart of the culprit and it is a well known dictum that even the devil may not know the thoughts of a man. Motive is a fact which no human being but the party himself can divine. Therefore, failure to discover a motive for an offence does not signify its absence and failure to produce evidence does not fatally affect it.

Crl.A.Nos. 939/2001, 27/2002 & 953/2001 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 23rd January, 2012 % DECIDED ON : 17th February, 2012 + CRL.A. 939/2001 ALOK KUMAR ….. Appellant Through : Mr.O.P.Malviya with Ms.Gitanjali Malviya Advocates. CRL.A. 27/2002 SANTOSH KUMAR ….. Appellant Through : Mr.Ravinder … Continue reading

This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) impugning the order dated 26.08.2010 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner of offence under Section 120-B read with Section 494 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).=under Section 13 of CPC a foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties except in cases specified thereunder. However the right if any to contend that the said foreign judgment is not conclusive can be only of the party who had himself / herself / itself not initiated the process of obtaining the said judgment and cannot be of a party at whose instance such foreign judgment has been obtained. No litigant can be allowed to abuse the process of the Courts or to approbate and reprobate as per convenience

CRL.M.C. 3845/2010 Page 1 of 8 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25th January, 2012 + CRL.M.C. 3845/2010 % DR. MEENA CHAUDHARY @ DR. MEENA P.N. SINGH ….. Petitioner Through: None. Versus BASANT KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING … Continue reading

scope and interpretation of sec.145[2] of N.I.Act=whether the petitioners/accused were not entitled to cross examine the complainant as regard to the entire facts contained in the affidavit of evidence of the complainant or their (petitioners‟) right of such a cross examination of the witness of the affidavit was limited to certain facts or their defences=In view of my above discussion, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the cross examination of the complainant would not remain limited to the contents of Para 4 and 6 of the applications of the complainant, but shall also extend to the facts in addition to their defences, as may be deemed and essential by the learned Magistrate relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the object and scheme of the Act and particularly, provisions of Sections 139, 143 of the Act and Section 106 of Evidence Act.

Crl.M.Cs.3089/2011 & 3090/2011 Page 1 of 9 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 02.01.2012 Pronounced on: 11.01.2012 + CRL.M.C. NO. 3089/2011 M/S. SUKHDATA CHITS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …… Petitioner Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate Versus SHRI RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA …… Respondent Through: WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 3090/2011 PREM KUMAR … Continue reading

when the cheques were not issued in discharge of any „debt‟ or „liability‟ but were issued as interest free security deposits and so the provisions of section 138 of the Act were not applicable.?=“With regard to the point in relation to security, I am of the view that whether the cheque was given as security or towards discharge of liability is a question to be decided by the Trial Court during the course Crl.M.C. 1136/2011 Page 8 of 8 of trial. Therefore, the point regarding issuance of cheque as security cannot be urged at this stage before this Court.” 12. From all these prima facie it is established that the dishonoured cheques were issued towards the discharge of a liability notwithstanding the fact that the money was by way of security deposit for the due performance of the terms of the agreement and was refundable at the time of vacation of the premises

Crl.M.C. 1136/2011 Page 1 of 8 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1136/2011 Reserved on: 14.12.2011 Pronounced on: 11.01.2012 DEEPAK VIG ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.L. Madan and Mr. K.K. Madan, Advocates versus AVDESH MITTAL ….. Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Middha and Mr.Y.R. Yadav, … Continue reading

trademarks= grant of injunction against use of the trade name “MORGARDSHAMMAR” and the trademarks “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the trademarks/ CS (OS) No. 863/2010 Page 69 of 69 trade name “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” and “MORGARDSHAMMAR” of the plaintiff= Defendant No. 1 has to blame itself for the revocation of the license. Till the time defendant No.1 maintained the share holding of the plaintiff above 25%, plaintiff has permitted the defendant No. 1 to use the trade mark/trade name. It is only when defendant No. 1 reduced the share holding of the plaintiff in defendant No. 1 to less than 25%, plaintiff has exercised its option of revoking the license.

CS (OS) No. 863/2010 Page 1 of 69 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 863/2010 * Reserved on: 5th September, 2011 Decided on: 2nd January, 2012 MORGARDSHAMMAR AB ……….PLAINITFF Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhixit Singh, Mr. A. Singh Gyani and Mr. Qazi Riaz Masood, Advs. Versus … Continue reading

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took into account the value of the plant and machinery installed in the two Cinema buildings. The assessment was challenged by way of a suit. =AIR 2003 SC 2935 Krishna Mohan Pvt. Ltd. vs. MCD & Ors. The Supreme Court has held that while determining the ratable value of a land or a building, the value of the plant and machinery installed or brought upon the land or building cannot be taken into account while determining the standard rent and therefrom the ratable value of the building.

RFA(OS) 100/1998 & RFA(OS) 101/1998 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 02, 2012 + RFA(OS) 100/1998 SHRI J.R.SOOD & ORS. ….. Appellants Through: None. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….. Respondent Through: Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate. + RFA(OS) 101/1998 M/S.AJAY ENTERPRISES LTD. ….. … Continue reading

“Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then the plaint can be rejected. The legal position is that to decide whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 4 of 10 defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal, categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is barred………………”= In the context of Section 185 of the DLR Act, Supreme Court in Gaon Sabha and Anr. Vs. Nathi and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 555 has held as under:- “The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 9 of 10 vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal

CS(OS) No. 2191 of 2007 Page 1 of 10 $~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2191/2007 and IA No. 7454/2009 (u/O 7 R 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) Decided on: 28th November, 2011 SMT. USHA GUPTA ….. Plaintiff Through : Mr. M.F. Khan and Mr. G.S. Chauhan, Adv. for … Continue reading

journalist shivani murder case – R.K. sharma acquitted=Once the link between Pradeep Sharma and the other appellants, insofar as the crime is concerned, is snapped, there is serious doubt about the involvement of the others. Although the motive behind Pradeep Sharma killing Shivani Bhatnagar is unclear and has not been established, we have already found, on the basis of other overwhelming scientific and circumstantial evidence, that Pradeep Sharma was the person who killed Shivani Bhatnagar. Did he act alone? Did he act at the behest of RK Sharma and the other appellants or did he act at the instance of someone else? These are questions which we cannot answer on the basis of the material before us. The quality of evidence before us is not of a high caliber. The key document Ex.PW135/28 is riddled with so many problems that it cannot be relied upon. Judges, like other human beings, also have suspicions but, judges, unlike others who are free to arrive at their own conclusions, cannot and do not convict on the basis of mere suspicion. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are afraid that the prosecution, in our view, has failed to do so insofar as appellants RK Sharma, Shri Bhagwan Sharma and Satya Prakash are concerned. The prosecution, however, succeeded in proving its case insofar as Pradeep Sharma is concerned. Consequently, Pradeep Sharma’s conviction under section 302 IPC stands confirmed and so does the sentence awarded to him. The other three appellants, namely, RK Sharma, Shri Bhagwan Sharma and Satya Prakash get the benefit of doubt and they stand acquitted of all charges.

CRL.A. Nos.357/08, 486/08, 396/08, 338/08, 751/09 & 752/09 Page 1 of 84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 12.10.2011 + CRL.A. 357/2008 RAVI KANT SHARMA … Appellant – versus – STATE … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sushil Kumar, Sr. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,453 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com