//
archives

special judge

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Perceiving divergent and contradictory views as regards the effect and impact of not committing an accused in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code’) in cases where charge-sheet is filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity `the Act’) and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act, a two-Judge Bench thought it apposite to refer the matter to a larger Bench and on the basis of the said reference, the matter has been placed before us= Judged from these spectrums and analysed on the aforesaid premises, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the objection relating to non-compliance of Section 193 of the Code, which eventually has resulted in directly entertaining and taking cognizance by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground alone, the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a direction of retrial and, therefore, the decision rendered in Bhooraji (supra) lays down the correct law inasmuch as there is no failure of justice or no prejudice is caused to the accused. The decisions rendered in 45 Moly (supra) and Vidyadharan (supra) have not noted the decision in Bhooraji (supra), a binding precedent, and hence they are per incuriam and further, the law laid down therein, whereby the conviction is set aside or matter is remanded after setting aside the conviction for fresh trial, does not expound the correct proposition of law and, accordingly, they are hereby, to that extent, overruled. 53. The appeals be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing on merits.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2008 Rattiram & Ors.                                            ………….Appellant Versus State of M. P. Through Inspector of Police                                 ………Respondent WITH CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2008 Satyanarayan & ors.                                        …………Appellant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Incharge, Police Station Cantt.                           ………Respondent J U … Continue reading

Passport Act, 1967: s.10(3)(e) – Impounding of passport of – NRI – FIR against – During search operation, passport seized – Retained by CBI under orders of Court – HELD: Retention of passport by CBI is clearly illegal as it has not been done in conformity with provisions of law and there is no order of the passport authorities u/s 10(3)(e) or by Central Government u/s 10-A to impound passport – Passport could not have been impounded except by passport authority in accordance with law – Passport Act being a specific one and s.104 Cr.P.C. being a general provision, by necessary implication power of court to impound any document or thing produced before it would exclude passport – Expressions `seizure’ and `impounding’ – Connotation of – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.102 and 104 – Interpretation of Statutes. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.102 – Seizure of document by police – HELD: Police may have power to seize a passport, it does not have power to retain or impound the same because that can only be done by passport authority u/s 10(3) of the Passport Act – If police seizes a passport u/s 102 of Code, it must send the same along with a letter to passport authority stating as to why seized passport deserves to be impounded u/s 10 of Passport Act – It is then for passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not – Passport to be returned to the owner – Passport Act, 1967 – ss. 10(3)(E) AND 10-A. Words and Phrases: Expressions `seizure’ and `impounding’ – Connotation of in the context of Passport Act, 1967 and Cr. P.C. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525; Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248; Dam Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others AIR 1966 SC 135; Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others 1999(7) SCC 76; and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1999 SC 3125; and State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 – referred to. Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition); and Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh (9th Edition) – referred to. Harish N. Salve, Sidharth Luthra, Mukul Rohtagi, Sandeep Kapur, Ruchin Midha, R.N. Karanjawala and Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant. A. Sharan, A.S.G., A. Mariarputham and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. =2008 AIR 1414, 2008(1 )SCR1212, 2008(3 )SCC674 , 2008(2 )SCALE46 , 2008(2 )JT174

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 179 of 2008 PETITIONER: SURESH NANDA RESPONDENT: C.B.I. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2008 BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R [ ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(CRL.) 3408 OF 2007 ] 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant claims to be a non-resident Indian settled in United Kingdom for … Continue reading

whether the Special Judge could refuse to accept closure report and direct reinvestigation of the case for the second time in order to proceed further although he was confronted with the legal impediment indicating lack of sanction for prosecution in the matter. =We are therefore of the considered view that the Special Judge in the wake of all these legal flaws as also the fact that the Special Judge under the circumstance was not competent to proceed in the matter without sanction for prosecution, could not have ordered for reinvestigation of the case for the third time by refusing to accept closure report dated 18.05.2004. This amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law resulting into vexatious proceeding and harassment of the appellant for more than 10 years without discussing any reason why he disagreed with the report of the Lokayukta and consequently the closure report which would have emerged if the Special Judge had carefully proceeded in accordance with the procedure enumerated for initiation of proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.166 OF 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1548/2011)     VASANTI DUBEY . Appellant   Versus   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..   Respondent     J U D G E M E N T     GYAN … Continue reading

Criminal Trial-Framing of Charges-Allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of Government money-Revision Petition challenging the framing of charges-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held-Per Katju, J.: There was sufficient material to frame the charge, hence not interfered with-Per Sinha, J. : There is lacuna in framing of charges-But the same not interfered with because trial has reached the stage of examination of witnesses and there is likelihood of early disposal of the matter-Penal Code, 1860-s. 420 r/w ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused and co-accused u/s 420 r/w ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471 IPC and various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegations were that six bogus firms claiming to have published advertisements, submitted 76 bogus bills worth Rs.30,30,057/- for payment by signing under fictitious names. The bills had not been entered in bill register and no file had been opened in respect of these firms. The file numbers written on the fictitious bills were also fake. Out of the 76 bills, 14 (pertaining to ad-hoc advertisement) were dishonestly processed by the appellant-accused and co-accused. All the bills were filled by another co-accused who was neither posted in the publicity division nor was he authorized to do so. Appellant-accused was also not the incharge of ad hoc advertisements. None of the bills bore initials or signatures of the incharge of the ad hoc advertisements. The bills were also not sanctioned / approved by the competent authority. The Revision Petition challenging the order of trial court, was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeals.

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 710 of 2007 PETITIONER: Soma Chakravarty RESPONDENT: State Through CBI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 552 of 2006] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Although I entirely agree with … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,953 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