Trace Your Case

Menu

Category: Criminal Procedure Code

Categories
Commencement Of Judicial Proceedings

Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan (1980 ) Supp. SCC 499

ISSUE:

Whether the error committed by the Magistrate has occasioned a gross failure of Justice?

RULE:

At the stage of Sections 203 & 204 of the Code in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 & 202 there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused.
All that he has to see is whether or not there is “sufficient ground for proceeding” against the accused. If there is prima facie evidence, that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Session. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinizing the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. At this stage of Sections 203 & 204, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court.
However, where the Magistrate does not lack inherent jurisdiction to pass the order, he, in meticulously appreciating the evidence, only oversteps the limits of his direction and commits only an irregularity, if not illegality, in the exercise of his jurisdiction.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Commencement Of Judicial Proceedings Uncategorized

Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan (1980 ) Supp. SCC 499

ISSUE:

Whether the Magistrate should have summarily dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code against Suraj Bhan accused?
Whether the error committed by the magistrate has occasioned into a gross failure of justice?

RULE:

Section 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rules Regarding Investigation Beyond 24 Hours

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (AIR (1992) SC 1768)

ISSUE:

Whether a person arrested and produced before the nearest magistrate as required under the section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can still be remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days?
Whether a person arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him during an occurrence can be detained again in police custody in respect of another offence committed by him in the same case and which fact comes to light after the expiry of the period of the first 15 days of his arrest?

RULE:

Whenever any person is arrested under Section 57 CrPC he should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours as mentioned therein. Such Magistrate may or may not have jurisdiction to try the case. If Judicial Magistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit the arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate on whom the judicial powers have been conferred.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rules Regarding Investigation Beyond 24 Hours

Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (1994 (2) ALT (Cri) 573)

ISSUE:

Whether the defence set up by an accused is really a defence of an exception or is a defence to assert the non-existence of a fact, which is an ingredient of an offence to be proved by the prosecution, depends upon the construction of the particular statute?
Whether the application for bail on ground of 'default' under Section 20(4) is filed first or the report as envisaged by Clause (bb) is filed by the public prosecutor first so long as both are considered while granting or refusing bail?
Whether in this context the words 'arms and ammunition' in Section 5 should be read conjunctively?

RULE:

Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1)(A), (1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

DK Basu v. State Of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610

ISSUE:

Who can be held responsible for these killings and tortures?
Need to specify guidelines and follow them while making the arrest of a person.

RULE:

The Court was of the opinion that custodial violence, including torture and death in lock-ups, strikes at the rule of law. Custodial violence, including torture and death in prisons, was considered by the court to be one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.
Protection against arrest and detention is guaranteed by Article 22. It provides that no individuals arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest and that arrested individuals shall not be denied the right to consult and defend themselves by a legal practitioner of their choice.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

Joginder Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh [(1994) 4 SCC 260]

ISSUE:

Whether the arrest of Joginder Kumar amounts to illegal detention?

RULE:

The case sets standard grounds for arresting any person thus being known as the ‘guidelines for arrest case’. It dealt with ‘Rights of individuals v. Protection of society’ due to the increment of crime rates and indiscriminate arrests over the years, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on creating equilibrium between the two.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India and Ors (AIR (2004) SC 7)

ISSUE:

Whether a woman can be arrested without the presence of a lady constable?
Whether a woman can be arrested after sunset and before sunrise under any circumstances?

RULE:

All efforts should be made to keep a lady constable present but in circumstances where the arresting officers is reasonably satisfied that such presence of a lady constable is not available or possible and/or the delay in arresting caused by securing the presence of a lady constable would impede the course of investigation such arresting officer for reasons to be recorded either before the arrest or immediately after the arrest be permitted to arrest a female person for lawful reasons at any time of the day or night depending on the circumstances of the case even that without the presence of a lady constable.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

Radha Kishan v. State of UP (AIR (19635) SC 822)

ISSUE:

Whether the allegedly obscene and defamatory portion of the book was an aberration of such magnitude that it could “potentiality disturb the public order, decency or morality,” thus inviting imposition of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution?

RULE:

The culture of banning books directly impacts the free flow of ideas and any direct or veiled censorship or ban of a book, unless defamatory or derogatory to any community for abject obscenity, would create unrest and disquiet among the intelligentsia.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

Shyam Lal Sharma and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR (1972 SC 886)

ISSUE:

Whether the omission to record the reasons was only an irregularity and that the respondents had no right to prevent the officer from making the search because as that contention had not been raised till then it felt that there was no justification to allow it to be raised before it for the first time?

RULE:

Section 342, Cr. P.C. is not confined to offences against public servants but is a general Section and makes a person who wrongfully restrains another, guilty of the offence under that Section. A wrongful confinement is a wrongful restraint in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond a certain circumscribed limit. This offence has nothing to do with the investigation or search and, therefore, the argument that the accused were entitled to obstruct P.W. 1 because he did not conform to the provisions of Section 165, Cr. P.C. is an argument of desperation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Process To Compel Appearance & Production Of Things

Manish Dixit and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (AIR (2001) SC 93)

ISSUE:

Whether a non-joining independent witness, despite the efforts of the Investigating Officer, renders the search invalid?
Whether information to the senior officer of the in-charge of the concerned police station is in compliance with the requirement of Section 166(3) of Cr.P.C.

RULE:

When an independent witness is not joined during search of a place, the search does not become invalid if the searching officer does not inform the in-charge of the police station.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here