30 July, 2016

Judges can't act as tape recorders,but protect witnesses - They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 175 of 2007. D/d. 12.3.2008.

Himanshu Singh Sabharwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondents

(With Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 173 of 2006)

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.
IMPORTANT
There is frequent turning of witness as hostile due to threats, coercion etc. - State should take legislative measures to protect witnesses so that trials are not reduced to mock trials as in movies.
Prosecution or defence failed to produce some evidence which was necessary for just disposal of case - Court has power to call for evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Criminal trial should be a search of truth and not a bout over technicalities - Trial is to protect innocent and punish guilty.

For the Appellant :- Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate with Anurag Sharma, Prashant Kumar and Arjun Harkauli, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Soli J. Sorabjee, Raju Ramachandran, Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocates with Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Vinay Navare Virender Parmar, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, K.L. Janjani, Krishnan Venugopal, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Ms. M. Indrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Bhupendra Yadav, Sharabh Samsheri, P.K. Kaurav, Vishwa Pal Singh and Shibashish Misra, Advocates.

Cases referred :
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Ms. Rani Jethmalani, (1979(4) SCC 167).
G.X. Francis v. Banke Behari Singh, AIR 1958 SC 309.
Mohan Lal v. Union of India, 1991(3) RCR(Criminal) 182 : (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271).
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheika v. State of Gujarat, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 836 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 46 : (2004(4) SCC 158).

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 175 of 2007 has been filed by one Himanshu Singh Sabharwal who is the son of late Prof. H.S. Sabharwal.

Read full Judgment »

30 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

26 July, 2016

Police duty bound to register FIR without making any enquiry with regard to genuineness or credibility of information

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Ajai Lamba, J. 
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21452-M of 2004. D/d. 18.10.2006

Mohinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate.
For the Respondent 1 to 5 :- Mr. Eklavya Kumar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 :- Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.


Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

Cases referred :
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. v. Tapan Kr. Singh, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 880 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 186 (SC) : 2003 Criminal Law Journal 2322.
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006(2) RCR(Crl.) 197 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 541 (SC) : (2006)2 SCC 677.
Mohindro v. State of Punjab, (2001) 9 SCC 581.
Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab through Home Secretary, Punjab, 1997(2) RCR(Criminal) 244.
Manjit Singh v. Senior Superintendent of Police, 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 412.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 604.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 454.

Read full Judgment »

26 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

25 July, 2016

Dowry articles entrusted at Amritsar and brought at Malerkotala at Matrimonial House - FIR lodged under Section 406 IPC at Amritsar - Amritsar court has the jurisdiction

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- S.C. Malte, J.
Criminal Revision No. 322 of 1997. D/d. 7.8.1997.

Surinder Kaur alias Namrata - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Rajiv Trikha, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT

S.C. Malte, J. - The wife has preferred this petition against the order vide which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has held that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case

Read full Judgment »

25 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

18 July, 2016

Compensation for victims shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- M.N. Venkatachaliah, CJI., S. Mohan and S.B. Majumdar, JJ.
Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 362 of 1993. D/d. 19.10.1994

Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondents

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

S. Mohan, J. - This public interest litigation invokes the benign provision of Article 32 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum to espouse

Read full Judgment »

18 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

Rs.5 Lakh Compensation to Rape Victim - Court has right to award interim compensation to victim

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- P. Sathasivam, CJI, Sharad Arvind Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 24 of 2014. D/d. 28.3.2014.

In Re Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business and Financial News - Petitioner

For the Appearing Parties :- Sidharth Luthra, ASG(AC), Aditya Wadhwa, Anandna Handa, Arjun Diwan, Anip Sachthey, Advocates.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam, CJI. - This Court, based on the news item published in the Business and Financial News dated 23.01.2014 relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year old woman of Subalpur Village, P.S. Labpur, District Birbhum,

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

17 July, 2016

Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder

The question is when death of man is to be treated as culpable homicide or murder, there is a thin difference between the murder and culpable homicide. Now you would think what difference it would make anyways, after all a person is killed, but here our law differs because culpable homicide carries maximum punishment of life imprisonment and where as murder carries death sentence.


Section 299. Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused.

Read full Judgment »

17 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

10 July, 2016

Consumer Court Orders Flipkart to pay Rs 10,000 fine for delivering wrong product

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

Narender Kaajla, R/o H.No.101, Block E-4, GHS-79, (AWHO Society), Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana). ….Complainant

Versus

1. Manager (sales) flipkart, DLF City IV, Sector-28, Gurgaon, Haryana.

It is duty of Service Provider to supply the prescribed form to consumer for settlement of the claims
2. Sunder Electronics, Gala No.135, 1 Floor, Pargati Industrial Estate. N.M.Joshi st Marg. Lower Parel (E), Mumbai-400011.
3. Manager Trackon Courier Services, DSS-312, (Ground Floor), Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.
….Opposite Parties


COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Mr.Dharam Pal, President.
Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.
Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.
For the Parties: Mr.Amit Singla, Adv., for the complainant.
Mr.Amit Mahajan, Adv., for the Op No.1.
Ops No.2 & 3 are exparte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)
The complainant-Narender Kaajla has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he placed an order online
shopping in the name of Prikshit Kaajla minor son,

Read full Judgment »

10 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

09 July, 2016

Plaintiff is not required to pay ad- valorem Court fee - Plaintiff filing suit seeking declaration regarding cancellation of gift deed and sale deed - Plaintiff has not sought consequential relief of possession on the plea that he is already in possession of the property in dispute

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Ram Chand Gupta, J.
Civil Revision No. 1029 of 2010 (O&M). D/d. 15.3.2011.

Narinder Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Naresh Kumar and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 and 2 :- Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4 :- Mr. Ramesh Pal Daaria, Advocate.
For the Chandigarh Administration :- Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT

Ram Chand Gupta, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2010,

Read full Judgment »

09 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

02 July, 2016

BCI has decided to pay Rs. 5000/- Stipend to New Advocates



Yes, BCI has decided to pay Rs. 5000/- Stipend to New Advocates.

In order to provide relief to the new advocates who struggle at their initial stage, the Bar Council of India decided to pay Rs. 5000/.- stipend per month for a period of 5 years.

The resolution was passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) at a joint meeting with the representatives of the State Bar Councils and State Bar Associations at Delhi.




The meeting was held to discuss and formulate schemes and proposals for lawyers.

Read full Judgment »

02 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

27 June, 2016

CrPC Section 164 - Evidentiary value of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - The statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence when the maker does not depose of such facts on oath during trial

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Before :- Joymalya Bagchi, J.
C.R.A. 418 of 2012. D/d. 18.9.2014.

Dr. Pankaj Biswas @ Dr. Pankaj Kr. Biswas - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Rajdeep Majumder and Bandibrata Dutta, Advocates.
For the State :- Rituparna Dey (Ghosh), Advocate.

Calcutta High Court, West Bengal Judgments

JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 14.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Read full Judgment »

27 June, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

25 June, 2016

Witness never gave any statement to the Police and his statement was made the part of record of investigation - Police Officer, thus, manipulated a false record of investigation to save somebody from being furnished

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(Nagpur Bench) 
Before :- C. L. Pangarkar, J. 
Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2007. D/d. 26.7.2007.

Nandkumar S. Kale
Versus
Bhaurao Chandra-bhanji Tidke and Anr.

For the Petitioner :- S. V. Sirpurkar, Counsel.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- V. G. Bhambur-kar, Counsel.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- Y. B. Mandpe, A. P. P.

Cases referred :
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557.
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U. P., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2102,
Sankaran Motira v. Sadhna Das, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Case 584.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Bombay High Court Judgments

JUDGMENT

C.L. Pangarkar, J. - Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.
2. This is a revision by an accused. A few facts may be stated thus:
The applicant is a police officer. At the relevant time he was working as in- charge of the Police Station Civil Lines, Akola.

Read full Judgment »

25 June, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

24 June, 2016

The victim had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence, if any, of the investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of PW - On the basis of the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant can be sustained

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Mr. P. Sathasivam and Mr. H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1248 of 2008. D/d. 28.1.2010.

Ram Singh @ Chhaju - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent

For the Appellants :- S.N. Bhardwaj, Ms. S. Ramamani, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Naresh K. Sharma, Advocates.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. - This appeal, by the accused, arises out of the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Read full Judgment »

24 June, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

©2011-2015 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Free Legal Advice on Phone