DLT Software Solutions ::: True Companion in Profession

45th Year at your Service
THE
DELHI LAW TIMES

A Daily Premium Periodical covering judgments pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Appeals from Delhi High Court decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court Plus Statutes Sections containing Acts/Rules/Amendments/Notifications of Central Govt. as well as NCT, Delhi. Journal Section(JS) containing Articles/ Write-ups/Critics by eminent Jurists, Lawyers, Educationists.

Click here to view more details:-

->Current Criminal Reports

CRIMINAL LAW

IV (2011) CCR 338 (DB)

Circumstantial Evidence — When a case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests, viz., circumstances from which inference of guilt is to be drawn, to be cogently and firmly established, circumstances unerringly point towards guilt of accused, circumstances form complete chain that in all probability crime was committed by accused and none else — Rules governing circumstantial evidence.

IV (2011) CCR 309

Defamation — Considering the nature of abuse hurled at complainant in an open meeting in front of gathering, complaint was maintainable.

IV (2011) CCR 288

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 427(2) 441, 389(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence — Person undergoing life imprisonment when subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment or for a term, that subsequent sentence was suspended by Appellate Court, but in spite of execution of bail bond he could not be released and continued to be in prison — He must be taken as undergoing subsequent sentence of imprisonment as well and entitled to protection under Section 427(2), Cr.P.C.

IV (2011) CCR 269

Recall of Witness — Once witness was examined and cross-examined fully, such witness should not be recalled and re-examined to deny evidence he had already given before Court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other Court or Forum subsequently.

IV (2011) CCR 269

Evidence — Electronic Record — Tape recorded conversation is admissible relevant evidence and it is admissible.

IV (2011) CCR 262

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 88, 92, 370, 304A — Medical Negligence — Act committed in good faith — Medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct falls below that of reasonably competent doctor — If act of medical practitioner is committed in good faith then necessary protection is required to be given.

IV (2011) CCR 262

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 279, 304A — Medical Negligence— Section 279 or 304A, IPC does not require any mens rea — Intention of medical practitioner is hardly of much significance in such a case.

IV (2011) CCR 253 (SC)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B — Criminal conspiracy — Gist of offence of conspiracy is agreement between two and more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means — There must be meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by conspirators regarding commission of crime.

IV (2011) CCR 246 (SC)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 320, 482 — Compounding of offence, Inherent powers — Simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320, Cr.P.C., is by itself no reason for High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. — That power can be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording conviction against accused and entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.

IV (2011) CCR 240

Judicial Review — Complaint which does not even disclose any prima facie case of a statutory offence might be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.

IV (2011) CCR 237 (SC)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 211 — Bail — False complaint — Once it is held that bail proceedings amounted to judicial proceedings same being anterior in point of time to taking of cognizance by M.M., no escape from conclusion that any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of Court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed or who finally dealt with that case.

IV (2011) CCR 231 (SC)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c)(ii) — “Criminal Contempt” — An act which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of Judicial proceeding comes within mischief of criminal contempt — Power to punish for contempt is inherent in Courts of record and described as necessary incident to every Court of justice.

IV (2011) CCR 231 (SC)

Contempt of Court — Power is inalienable attribute of Court and inheres in every Court of record — This power though inherent to High Court is given a constitutional status by Article 215 of Constitution.

IV (2011) CCR 193 (DB)

Shivani Bhatnagar Murder Case:

Murder — Criminal conspiracy, Disappearance of evidence, Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, Common intention, Dishonest misappropriation of property, Dishonestly receiving stolen property, Cheating by personation — Appreciation of evidence — Prosecution proved its case against accused PS but not RK, BS & SP.

IV (2011) CCR 193 (DB)

Shivani Bhatnagar Murder Case:

Electronic Record — Evidentiary value — No bar to adducing secondary evidence under this provision.

IV (2011) CCR 193 (DB)

Shivani Bhatnagar Murder Case:

Evidence — Phone Calls — Every call made or received is recorded in data banks of call phone company — Every call record in respect of particular phone number has a mirror image in data banks of other called/calling number.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Latin Maxim — “Salus populi est suprema lex” — Safety of the people is supreme law and “salus reipublicae suprema lex” — Safety of the State is supreme law, co-exist.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Police Atrocities — Always violative of the constitutional mandate, particularly, Article 21 and Article 22 — In view of provisions of Art. 21 of Constitution, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is inhibited — Torture is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise — Court has to balance protection of fundamental rights of an individual and duties of police.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — In addition to protection provided under Constitution, Protection of Human Rights Act provide for protection of all rights to every individual — It inhibits illegal detention — Torture and custodial death have always been condemned by Courts in this country.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Burden of Proof — Section 106 is not intended to relieve prosecution of its burden to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt — But section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain facts, unless accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive Court to draw different inference.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 134 — Evidence of sole eye-witness — No legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of single witness — That is the logic of Section 134 of Evidence Act — But if there are doubts about testimony, Court will insist on corroboration.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Extraordinary Case — Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary remedies — While dealing with an unprecedented case, Court has to innovate the law and may also pass unconventional order keeping in mind that extraordinary fact situation requires extraordinary measures.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Criminal Trial — Accused named first time in Court by witness in his deposition in Court and not at the time of recording his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. — Accused becomes entitled to benefit of doubt.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Criminal Trial — It is impermissible in law to charge an accused in alternative for being shared common intention with another or others unknown, but even then common intention would have to be proved either by direct evidence or by legitimate inference.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Criminal Trial — Recovery of dead body is not a condition precedent for conviction of accused for murder.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Evidence of Accom pli ce — Reliability — Evidence is required to be considered with care and caution — An accomplice who has not been put on trial is a competent witness as he deposes in Court after taking oath — There is no prohibition in any law not to act upon his deposition without corroboration.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Corpus Delicti in Murder Case — It is not necessary that dead body of victim should be found and identified, i.e. conviction for offence of murder does not necessarily depend upon corpus delicti being found.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Circumstantial Evidence — If there is sufficient evidence to show that accused fabricated some evidence to screen/absolve himself from offence, such circumstance may point towards his guilt.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Constitution of India , 1950 — Art. 21 — Right to Life — Characterised as ‘supreme’ and ‘basic’ — It includes both negative and positive obligations for ‘State’.

IV (2011) CCR 182 (SC)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 386(e) — Sentence — Enhancement of sentence suo motu — High Court in exercise of its power under Section 386(e), Cr.P.C. is competent to enhance sentence suo motu — Such a course is permissible only after giving opportunity of hearing to accused.

IV (2011) CCR 169 (SC)

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 30 — Confession — Evidentiary value of retracted confession of co-accused — If it is capable of belief independently of confession, then it is not necessary to call confession in aid.

IV (2011) CCR 174 (SC)

Dishonour of Cheque — Liability of Director — In case of Director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner Director was incharge of and responsible to accused company for conduct of its business — Mere bald statement that he or she was incharge and responsible to company for conduct of its business is not sufficient.

I (2011) CCR 206 (SC)
SUPERINTENDING POWERS — Power of superintendence conferred on High Court under Art. 227 of Constitution is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep Subordinate Courts within bounds of their authority.

I (2011) CCR 206 (SC)
DISPENSING WITH PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED — General directions issued by High Court are inconsistent with clear language of Sections 205 and 313, Cr.P.C. — Satisfaction whether or not accused deserves to be exempted from personal attendance has to be of Magistrate, who is the master of Court insofar as progress of trial is concerned and none else.

I (2011) CCR 201 (SC)
FRAMING OF CHARGES — Mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable Court from convicting accused for offence proved on basis of evidence on record.

I (2011) CCR 192 (SC)
UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND — Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability.

I (2011) CCR 185 (SC)
SENTENCE — Dishonour of woman called for harsher punishment.

I (2011) CCR 172 (SC)
FRAMING OF CHARGES — Accused must be aware as to what is the case against them and what defence they could lead.

I (2011) CCR 172 (SC)
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL — Unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.

I (2011) CCR 155 (SC)
EVIDENCE — Hostile witness testimony is admissible in evidence and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record.

I (2011) CCR 150 (SC)
INHERENT POWERS — Unauthorised occupation of servant quarter for 18 years after retirement without any right — Manifest illegality in impugned order resulted in palpable injustice to appellant/company curable at this stage under Art. 142 of Constitution as it is inherent power of this Court as guardian of Constitution.

I (2011) CCR 136 (SC)
FRAMING OF CHARGES — Accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced.

I (2011) CCR 132 (SC) BAIL
In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be taken into consideration by Court is delay in concluding the trial.

I (2011) CCR 132 (SC)
BAIL Medical treatment administered to assailants — Respondent being a doctor, was under Hippocratic oath to heal a patient — Just as it is the duty of lawyer to defend an accused, so also it is the duty of doctor to heal.

I (2011) CCR 125
TESTIMONY — Child witness — Is not an incompetent witness and evidence can be relied upon if child is capable of giving rational account of what he or she has seen.

I (2011) CCR 122 (SC)
BAIL — Application for bail not maintainable on default ground as it is filed on day when prosecution filed charge-sheet.

I (2011) CCR 113
ELECTRICITY — Theft of Electricity — Merely because complaint also contains prayer for determination of civil liability by itself does not convert it into ‘plaint’ — Ad valorem Court fee is not payable on complaints filed by Petitioner-BSES before Special Courts.

I (2011) CCR 113
DISTINCTION — Plaint vis-a-vis Criminal Plaint — A document cannot be said to be a criminal complaint as well as plaint at the same time.

I (2011) CCR 112 (SC)
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION — Self-incriminating statement — No person can be witness against himself.

I (2011) CCR 102 (SC)
EVIDENCE — Dying declaration — Deceased had been in great pain and if there were minor discrepancies inter se dying declarations, they were to be accepted as something normal.

I (2011) CCR 101
APPEAL — Limitation — Period of limitation for presenting appeal on behalf of State Government from order of acquittal is 90 days and not 60 days.

I (2011) CCR 96 (DB)
MUSLIM LAW — Person responsible for death of another person from whom first person is otherwise to inherit, would be disqualified from such inheritance and would be regarded as non-existent.

I (2011) CCR 96 (DB)
APPEAL Reasonable period of limitation for filing an appeal by victim ought to be regarded as 60 days from date of order appealed from.

I (2011) CCR 82 (SC)
DOWRY DEATH — Presumption — If death is unnatural, either homicidal or suicidal, it would be death taken place in unnatural circumstances and provisions of Section 304B would be applicable.

I (2011) CCR 77
RAPE — Appellants guilty under Section 376, IPC even if they had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix with her consent as she was less than 16 years old at the time of incident.

I (2011) CCR 64
JURISDICTION — Powers of CMM to try case under Official Secrets Act has been withdrawn in view of withdrawal of notification by UOI — Sessions Judge now has power to conduct trial vide an administrative order.

I (2011) CCR 63 (SC)
Ghaziabad P.F. Scam TRANSFER OF TRIAL — Power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial.

I (2011) CCR 58 (SC)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 — Section 19 — Sanction for Prosecution — Object — To ensure that public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted or unsubstantiated allegations.

I (2011) CCR 58 (SC)
CORRUPTION — Sanction for Prosecution — Public Servant — Review of order in granting or refusing sanction — Change of opinion per se on same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing earlier order refusing to grant sanction.

I (2011) CCR 49
REVISION — High Court — Either under special enactment or under Art. 227 of Constitution is maintainable.

I (2011) CCR 43 (SC)
G.S. Singhvi, A.K. Ganguly, JJ. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Law does not accord any special treatment to any person in respect of any complaint having been filed against him when it discloses commission of any cognizable offence.

I (2011) CCR 43 (SC)
G.S. Singhvi, A.K. Ganguly, JJ. MONEY LENDING — Illegal money lending and charging exorbitant interest @ 10% p.m. on money lent from farmers by second respondent — Complaints against second respondent — C.M.’s order for special treatment in favour of second respondent to protect them from normal legal process and adopt special procedure, was beyond legal norms and contrary and inconsistent with constitutional promise of equality.

I (2011) CCR 38
CONFESSION — Even if recorded under special statutes, it is to be established that it was voluntary, without any coercion or duress, which will be examined depending upon facts of each case.

I (2011) CCR 38
ELECTRICITY — It is desirable that some guidelines are issued with regard to precautions to be taken and procedure for further investigation making it clear for compliance of Electricity Rules and procedure to be followed in such cases under Cr.P.C.

I (2011) CCR 30 (DB)
PREVENTIVE DETENTION — Is a valuable constitutional right and is not a mere formality.

I (2011) CCR 22 (SC)
COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCE — Non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by Court, whether directly or indirectly.

I (2011) CCR 23 (SC)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION — Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a party.

I (2011) CCR 23 (SC)
IR — When information regarding a cognizable offence is furnished to the police that information will be regarded as FIR and all inquiries held by police subsequent thereto would be treated as investigation even though formal registration of FIR takes place only later.

I (2011) CCR 21 (SC)
DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE — Receipt of notice is absolutely necessary as a precondition for constituting such an offence.

I (2011) CCR 14 (SC)
NDPS — Search and Seizure — Mere absence of independent witness at the time of search and seizure will not render prosecution case unreliable.

I (2011) CCR 14 (SC)
EVIDENCE — Initial burden of proof of possession lies on prosecution and once it is discharged legal burden would shift on accused.

I (2011) CCR 1 (SC)
Aftermath of Babri Masjid Demolition, 1992 Riots: EVIDENCE — Suspicion no matter how strong cannot take place of legal proof.

I (2011) CCR 1 (DB)
FIR — An accused is entitled to get a copy of FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207, Cr.P.C., within 24 hours of making application, if he is suspect of being roped in criminal case and his name may find place in FIR.

I (2011) CCR 1 (DB)
FIR –– Copies of FIR should be uploaded on Delhi Police website within 24 hours of lodging of FIR so that accused or any person connected with same can download FIR and file appropriate application before Court as per law for redressal of his grievances.

IV (2010) CCR 188 (SC)
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION — High Court hearing appeal is the last Court of facts.

IV (2010) CCR 258 (SC)
COGNIZANCE — Even if investigating authority is of the view that no case has been made out against accused, Magistrate can apply his mind independently to materials contained in police report and take cognizance.

IV (2010) CCR 157 (SC)
COMMON INTENTION — In order to attract Section 34, IPC, complaint must prima facie reflect a common prior concert or planning amongst appellant and other accused.

IV (2010) CCR 197 (SC)
To show common intention to commit a crime it is not necessary for prosecution to establish that there was pre-meeting of minds and planning before crime was committed.

IV (2010) CCR 237 (SC)
CONTEMPT OF COURT — Person bringing the facts constituting contempt to the notice of Court can never be a party to lis nor can join proceedings as a petitioner.

IV (2010) CCR 220
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 — Sections 156(3), 154(1), 200 to 210 — Powers to be exercised by M.M. — Pre-requisites to be followed by complainant before approaching Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. which is discretionary remedy as provision proceeds with word ‘may’.

IV (2010) CCR 145 (SC)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 — Section 174 — Inquest Report — Purpose of preparation of inquest report is to ascertain whether a person has died in some suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and as to apparent cause of death.

IV (2010) CCR 213 (SC)
CRIMINAL TRIAL — Duty of the trial Judge — He cannot be a mere spectator to what goes on in the name of trial — Trial Judge has to control the trial by active application of mind.

IV (2010) CCR 245 (SC)
Identification in a crowd of assailants — In cases where there are large number of assailants, it can be difficult for a witness to identify each assailant and attribute specific role to him.

IV (2010) CCR 409 (DB)
If Court insists on recovery of weapon of offence, any offender may get away with crime committed by him simply by damaging, destroying or parting with weapon used by him.

IV (2010) CCR 382 (DB)
CUSTODY — Actual or physical imprisonment of a person both legal and illegal amounts to his being in custody.

IV (2010) CCR 217
DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE—Presumption—Defence available to accused is limited in view of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

IV (2010) CCR 164 (SC)
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — Live-in relationship — Not all live-in relationships will amount to ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ to get benefit of Act of 2005.

IV (2010) CCR 291
Resort of Domestic Violence Act cannot be done to enforce property rights.

IV (2010) CCR 189 (SC)
EVIDENCE — Circumstantial Evidence — A false plea taken by an accused in case of circumstantial evidence is an additional link in chain of circumstances.

IV (2010) CCR 173 (SC)
Extra-judicial Confession — No absolute rule that extra judicial confession can never be the basis of conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material.

IV (2010) CCR 294
Handwriting expert — Identification of relevant signatures by a person who is acquainted with same in ordinary course is a much more reliable piece of evidence.

IV (2010) CCR 189 (SC)
Hostile Witness — Evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but same can be accepted to extent that their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof.

IV (2010) CCR 409 (DB)
Injured witness — He is the best witness of incident in which injuries were caused to him — His testimony is entitled to great weight.

IV (2010) CCR 245 (SC)
Injured Witnesses — Testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone.

IV (2010) CCR 197 (SC)
Interested Witness — There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before Court.

IV (2010) CCR 217
Secondary evidence—Even xerox copy of document can be taken into evidence as secondary evidence, if conditions laid down under Section 65 of Evidence Act are satisfied.

IV (2010) CCR 210
Weakness of defence evidence certainly cannot be considered by prosecution — Prosecution must stand on its own legs.

IV (2010) CCR 339
EXPRESSION — ‘Conferred on it’ — Jurisdiction has to be specifically conferred and cannot be deemed to have been conferred.

IV (2010) CCR 274
FORGERY — As passing of any order even an illegal order never assumes any characteristics of making a false document.

IV (2010) CCR 274
JUDICIARY — Additional Protection to Judges — Immunity from Civil or Criminal Proceeding.

IV (2010) CCR 294
LOCUS STANDI — Principle of locus standi — Expanded to include within its ambit of expression “person aggrieved”, a person who may not have suffered personal injury but is aggrieved by a wrongful act.

IV (2010) CCR 294
MOLESTATION — When a female is being held physically by force and without her consent, offence of molestation is complete.

IV (2010) CCR 370
MONEY LAUNDERING — Date of laundering would be relevant — Relevant date is not date of acquisition of illicit money but dates on which such money is being processed for projecting it untainted.

IV (2010) CCR 269 (SC)
NDPS — Search and Seizure — Obligation under Section 50(1) is mandatory and requires strict compliance.

IV (2010) CCR 220
POWERS OF MAGISTRATE — It is not necessary that every case where complaint is filed under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Magistrate should direct police to investigate crime merely because application also filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

IV (2010) CCR 294
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION — When two views are possible, view taken by trial Court should not be substituted by another possible view unless and until it is established that view taken by trial Court suffers from perversity.

IV (2010) CCR 262 (SC)
SENTENCE — Reduction of — Taking a minor girl to far away place and selling her for illegal or immoral purposes is not a fit case for reduction of sentence.

IV (2010) CCR 152 (SC)
TRANSFER OF CASE — Killings in Manipur — Risk of intimidation of witnesses as well as undue prejudice seeping into minds of those involved in legal proceedings in different capacities — It would be expedient in ends of justice to conduct trial in Delhi.

IV (2010) CCR 178 (SC)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY — Wherever by legal fiction principle of vicarious liability is attracted and person who is otherwise not personally involved in commission of an offence is made liable for same, it has to be specifically provided in statute concerned.