advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Police officer
Sec.41 and Sec.41 A and Sec.57 of Cr.P.C. – No police arrest a person below the 7 years punishment like offence 498 A I.P.C and sec.3 of Dowry prohibition Act etc., – Every police officer must issued a notice under sec.41 A to the accused – failure of which liable for contempt of court before concerned High court – Magistrate also directed to observe the conditions of Sec.41 and 41 A – if arrest is not with in the parameter – release the accused immediately – it not only applies to Marriage offences but also to all offence less than 7 years punishment = ARNESH KUMAR ….. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41736
Sec.41 and Sec.41 A and Sec.57 of Cr.P.C. – No police arrest a person below the 7 years punishment like offence 498 A I.P.C and sec.3 of Dowry prohibition Act etc., – Every police officer must issued a notice under sec.41 A to the accused – failure of which liable for contempt of court before … Continue reading
whether under Section 154 CrPC, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.= Lalita Kumari …. Petitioner (s) Versus Govt. of U.P. & Ors. …. Respondent(s)= Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40960
whether under Section 154 CrPC, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.= In view of the aforesaid discussion, … Continue reading
NDPS Act = Search and seizer is a mandatory under sec.42 and sec.50 = Balbir singh principle – Gurjant Singh @ Janta …. Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab …. Respondent = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40907
NDPS Act = Search and seizer is a mandatory under sec.42 and sec.50 = but when police officer himself summoned DSP who is an acting DSP with out DSP rank then the Balbir singh principle not apply Lower court and High court committed grave error – Apex court set aside = Balbir … Continue reading
sec. 67 NDPS ACT and sec.25 of Evidence Act – whether the Officer are Police Officer and whether the officers can record a confessional statement from the Accused by force= TOFAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40880
sec. 67 NDPS ACT and sec.25 of Evidence Act – whether the Officer are Police Officer and whether the officers can record a confessional statement from the Accused by force – due to conflict judgments- referred to larger bench. = In our view the aforesaid discussion necessitates a re-look into the ratio … Continue reading
Service matter – appointment of trained teachers in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the state of Bihar = several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar. = Be that as it may, in the event, some discrepancies had crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel. Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. We also direct that the applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.
Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40581 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26824 OF 2012 YASHWANT SINGH & ORS. … PETITIONERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH I.A.Nos. 668, 669, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680, … Continue reading
Custodial Death – Writ petition alleging custodial death – Compensation sought – State responding that FIR lodged and erring officials charged u/ss.330, 342 and 306 IPC, sanction for prosecution granted and cognizance of offences taken – Held: In view of the facts, no further direction required at this stage – Prayer for compensation not acceptable as the issue as to whether the death was custodial, yet to be decided – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 330, 342 and 306. Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 21, 20(3) and 22 – Custodial violence and torture is defiance of the rights flowing from Constitution – Increase of such violence raises serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system — universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 – Article 5. Criminal trial – Adherence to principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt – In Police torture cases – Held: Exaggerated and strict adherence to the principle in such cases, often results in miscarriage of justice – Courts to deal with such cases in realistic manner. The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court alleging that his son was done to death in police custody and the police officials were giving the death, a colour of suicide, attempting to protect the erring police officials. Petitioner also sought compensation. On notice, respondent-State stated that FIR had been registered and certain police officials had been charged for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 330, 342 and 306 IPC. Sanction for prosecution had also been given. Charge-sheet had been filed. Accused had surrendered before Court and their bail had been rejected. =Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD:1.1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5 that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Despite this pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for its eradication. [Para 6] [831-G-H; 832-A-B] 1.2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V CrPC deals with the powers of arrest of persons and the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. Articles 20(3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult to comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants immediate remedial measures. [Para 8] [832-D-H; 833-A] 1.3. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate them. [Para 9] [833-D-E] Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCC 70; Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 709; Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1992) 3 SCC 249; Smt. Nilabati Behera @Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR (1993) SC 1960; Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 100; Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 600; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 702 and State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 262, relied on. 2.1. Rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, there is any direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues – and the present case is an apt illustration – as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter. [Para 10] [834-A-B] 2.2. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact-situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach at times by the courts as well because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to them if one prisoner dies in the lock-up because there would hardly be any evidence available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. [Para 11] [834-C-E] 2.3. The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognized by the Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/under-trial prisoners or suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in `Khaki’ to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence eating the crops, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading, towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually lose faith in the efficacy of the system of judiciary itself. [Para 11] [834-F-H; 835-A- B] 3. In view of the fact that sanction for prosecution has been granted, charge sheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken, no further direction at present is necessary. If at any point of time, evidence surfaces before the concerned court to show that some other offences appear to have been committed, necessary orders can be passed. The prayer for compensation is also not acceptable because that would depend upon decision of the issue as to whether there was custodial death. [Para 12] [835-C-D] Case Law Reference: (1980) 3 SCC 70 Relied on Para 9 AIR 1990 SC 709 Relied on Para 9 (1992) 3 SCC 249 Relied on Para 9 AIR (1993) SC 1960 Relied on Para 9 (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 100 Relied on Para 9 (1995) 3 SCC 600 Relied on Para 9 (1995) 3 SCC 702 Relied on Para 9 (1995) 4 SCC 262 Relied on Para 9 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 193 of 2006. Kamini Jaiswal for the Petitioner. Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondents.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO. 193 OF 2006 Dalbir Singh …Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. …Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Alleging that because of custodial torture and diabolic acts of the police officials of Noida Police, Somvir Singh @ Sonu aged 17 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 