Manoj Kumar

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Dying Declaration =It may not be an absolute proposition of law that a dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate There is nothing on record to suggest that Dr. Rajinder Rai (PW- 4) is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, he is a natural witness and his testimony has not been shaken during a long cross examination. The theory of tutoring is also ruled out in the present case as the accused persons only were present with the deceased during that time and none of the family members of the deceased were present when the dying declaration was recorded by the Doctor. The husband (appellant no.1) Manoj has also affixed his signature on the MLR on which the dying declaration was recorded by the Doctor. The evidence of PW-4 is trustworthy, cogent and reliable. What we find in the present case is that the dying declaration (Ext.PF) which was recorded by Dr.Rajinder Rai (PW-4) was also signed by Manoj (appellant no.1) which indicates that appellant No.1 was present when statement was recorded. Nothing on the record to suggest that any of the relation of the deceased was present to influence Dr. Rajinder Rai (PW-4). The law is well settled that if the declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to make such statement, then there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration. Such view was taken by this Court in Kanaksingh Raisingh Rav v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 1 SCC 73 wherein this Court held: the law is well settled i.e. if the declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to make such statement, then there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration. In the instant case, the evidence of PW 5, the doctor very clearly shows that the deceased was conscious and was medically in a fit state to make a statement. It is because of the fact that a Judicial Magistrate was not available at that point of time, he was requested to record the statement, which he did. His evidence in regard to the state of mind or the physical condition of the deceased to make such a declaration has not been challenged in the cross- examination. That being so, it should be held that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a declaration as held by the courts below. The next question for our consideration is whether this statement is voluntary and truthful. It is not the case of the defence that when she made the statement either she was surrounded by any of her close relatives who could have prompted her to make an incorrect or false statement. In the absence of the same so far as the voluntariness of the statement is concerned, there can be no doubt because the deceased was free from external influence or pressure. So far as the truthfulness of the statement is concerned, the doctor (PW 5) has stated that she has made the said statement which, as noted above, is not challenged in the cross-examination. The deceased in her brief statement has, in clear terms, stated that because of the quarrel between her and the accused, the accused had poured kerosene and set her on fire which, in our opinion, cannot be doubted………”

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40535 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1853 OF 2012 MANOJ & ORS. …APPELLANTS Versus STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The appellants in this case were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian … Continue reading

Insecticides Act,1968 -It is not disputed that on 30.10.1998, i.e. before the filing of the complaint, Annexure P-1, an application was filed by the manufacturer with a prayer that the complainant be directed to produce the sample in court and the sample may be got analysed from any Laboratory at the cost and expenses of the petitioner. Despite the prayer made in the application, neither the sample was produced in the court, nor was sent for re-testing. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, the court as its own discretion or at the request of the complainant or accused, can cause the sample of Insecticides produced before it to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Laboratory. Admittedly, the sample was not produced for re-analysis, at the request made on behalf of manufacturer, who was co-accused in the complaint and in this way, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample re-analysed. These very grounds prevailed upon the court at the time the complaint qua the manufacturer was quashed in Criminal Misc. No. 3737-M of 1994. Accordingly, the complaint against the petitioner too deserves to be quashed, being an abuse of process of the court.” In view of above settled position of law, entire exercise by the court in violation of accused right vested and conferred under section 24 (3) and (4) of the Act will be futile and fruitless yielding no result in favour of the prosecution. Concludingly, this 482 Cr.P.C. Application is allowed. Prosecution of applicants in case no. 1206 of 2005, State versus Satish Kumar Tyagi and others, under section 29(1) of Insecticides Act,1968 pending before C.J.M., Bijnor is hereby quashed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved AFR CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATON NO.31053 OF 2009 Bharat Insecticides Ltd. and another…….Applicants. VERSUS State of U.P………………………………..Respondent. Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. through it’s Zonal Business Manager, Ghaziabad (A1) and it’s Assistant Manager, Manoj Kumar(A2) have invoked inherent power of this court, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., through present … Continue reading

Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Supreme Court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the authorities below under its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. [Para 29 and 35] [185- G; 187-E] Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others 1958 SCR1240=AIR 1958 SC 398; Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu 1963 Suppl. SCR570= AIR 1963 SC 1895; Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others 1984 (1) SCR 211= (1983) 4 SCC 566; Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576; Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others1998 (2) SCR 197=(1998) 3 SCC 341; Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR643= (1999) 1 SCC 47, relied on. 2.1. The High Court erroneously observed that “the authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has to be presumed.” This finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. It would have far reaching ramifications and consequences. If the genuineness of the sale price entered into by the buyer and the seller cannot be questioned, then in majority of the cases it is unlikely that the State would ever receive the stamp duty according to the circle rate or the collector rate. The approach of the High Court is totally unrealistic. [Para 36] [187-G-H; 188-A] 2.2. In order to ensure that there is no evasion of stamp duty, circle rates are fixed from time to time and the notification issued to that effect. The issuance of such notification has become imperative to arrest the tendency of evading the payment of actual stamp duty. It is a matter of common knowledge that usually the circle rate or the collector rate is lower than the prevalent actual market rate but to ensure registration of sale deeds at least at the circle rates or the collector rates such notifications are issued from time to time. [Para 39] [188-E, F] 2.3 It is not disputed that in the instant case the commercial plot of 788 sq. yards was valued by the circle rate at Rs.4,200 per sq. yard fixed by the Collector, meaning thereby that after the notification, no sale deed could be registered for an amount lesser than Rs.4,200/- per sq.yard. The High Court has not properly construed the observations of the District Collector to the effect that the suit was filed in the civil court with the intention to avoid tax and stamp duty inasmuch as the value of the property as per the circle rate was Rs.33,09,600, on which stamp duty to be paid was Rs.5,13,050/- whereas the stamp duty actually paid was only Rs.31,000/-, therefore stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,82,050 was payable. This order was upheld by the Commissioner. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 has set aside the orders passed by the authorities below without any basis or rationale. Apart from the jurisdiction, even what is factually stated in the order of the District Collector as upheld by the Commissioner, is unexceptionable and any interference was totally unwarranted. [Para 40-41] [189-B-C; D-E] 2.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside, and the order passed by the District Collector, as upheld by the Commissioner, is restored. The respondent is directed to pay the balance stamp duty. [Para 42] [189-F, G] State of Punjab & Others v. Mohabir Singh etc.etc. 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR520= (1996) 1 SCC 609; R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha & Others 2003 (6) Suppl.SCR85= (2004) 2 SCC 9, cited. Case Law Reference: 1958 SCR1240 relied on para 23 1963 Suppl. SCR570 relied on para 24 1984 (1) SCR211 relied on para 25 (1995) 6 SCC 576 relied on para 26 1998 (2) SCR197 relied on para 27 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR643 relied on para 28 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR520 cited para 32 2003 (6) Suppl.SCR85 cited para 33 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 4.2.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12094 of 2007. Puneet Mittal, AAG, Naresh Bakshi, T.A. Mir and Ankur Aggarwal for the Appellants. Manoj Swarup, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Ashok Anand and Ajay Kumar for the Respondent.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2226 OF 2010 [Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26684 of 2008] State of Haryana & Ors. … Appellants Versus Manoj Kumar … Respondent JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,910 hits



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

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com