Whether the Courts can monitor investigations when the investigation has already been commenced by the investigating agency?
The Supreme Court and the High Court can intervene in the investigation process in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Whether High Courts can direct the manner of investigation by an investigating agency under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”)?
The High Court cannot interfere with the investigation of crime under Section 482 of the Code by directing the police to investigate in accordance with its views.
The only grounds for exercising the High Courts’ powers under Section 482 of the Code are – to secure the ends of justice, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
Whether eye-witness accounts can be relied upon in lieu of expert medical evidence, in case of conflict?
Whether the retirement of officer, expert of employee witness is a bar to taking of disciplinary action against them for deliberate dereliction of duty prejudicial to the prosecution’s case?
Omissions by the key witnesses, whether intentional or not, require close scrutiny. Credible and consistent eye-witness testimony can outweigh conflicting medical evidence. Expert witnesses provide scientific analysis, but the final determination rests on the assessment of all available evidence.
The court cannot discard the statements of friendly or related eyewitnesses when their presence is proved to be natural and their statements are a truthful account of the occurrence.
The courts are justified to direct appropriate disciplinary action against officers or expert and employee witnesses, for deliberate dereliction of their duties, whether they are in service or retired.
Whether second application for police remand after dismissal of first application is maintainable?
Whether bail can be cancelled on the ground of disclosures made by the accused during investigation?
The second application for police remand after dismissal of first application is maintainable only if made within first 15 days of arrest.
Bail cannot be cancelled on the sole ground of any disclosures of the accused, when there is no allegation of misuse of the privilege of bail.
Whether Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”) is constitutionally valid, in light of the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (“FERA”)?
Whether preventive detention can exist for activities that are not criminal offences and do not attract any punishment?
Preventive detention can exist for illegal activities which though do not attract any punishment, are prejudicial to the security of the State.
The repeal of FERA by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, does not dilute the control of the Government over foreign exchange.
When a detention order is not executed for more than a year on account of the contumacious conduct of the detenu, he cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing by challenging the detention order as having lapsed the maximum period.
Whether the High Court can direct the investigating authority to file additional chargesheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) in case of intervention by senior officers and MLA into the investigation to benefit the accused?
While the Courts cannot generally interfere with matters of investigation, there is an exception when the same is necessary in order to prevent an injustice on account of the intervention of influential persons.
Whether the restriction on appointing Special Magistrates to only current or former government employees under Sections 13 and 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) violates the principle of equality?
Confining appointment to the post of Special Judicial Magistrates/ Special Metropolitan Magistrates to current or past government employees under Sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Code is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether High Courts have the requisite jurisdiction to transfer an investigation from one police station to another at an initial stage?
The power to direct transfer of investigation from one police station to another is vested with police authorities under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”). The courts cannot interfere in the matter at an initial stage, especially without assigning reasons for doing so.
Whether delayed appointment of amicus curiae (court-appointed counsel) by itself amounts to denial of fair trial to an indigent accused?
Indigence should not deny fair trial or justice. Competent advocates must be appointed, given sufficient time and complete papers, ensuring they can effectively handle complex cases.
The delay in appointment of amicus curiae, though disturbing, does not by itself result in denying fair trial. The same can be rectified by providing adequate time and material to the counsel.
Whether the Supreme Court can go into a detailed inquiry into the facts and evidence of a case during the revision of a consent order under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”)?
Whether a consent order under Section 321 of the Code can be appealed against?
Appeal against a consent order under Section 321 of the Code, which deals with withdrawal from prosecution, is not possible.
While revision of a consent order is possible under Section 397 of the Code, the court cannot go into a detailed inquiry into the facts and evidence of the case.
During revision, the court considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings in the order or judgement.