Leave a comment

Notable Quotes from the Judgements of the High court & Supreme Court of India:-

>>Anticipatory Bail to be granted in cases where accused is not likely to abscond:-

Law Commission of India in its 41st Report recommended the necessity of introducing a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code enabling the High Court and the Sessions court to grant anticipatory bail. It was observed by the Law Commission that necessity of granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse the liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to custody, remain imprisoned for some days and then apply for bail. [Roop Kishore Madan vs State 89(2001) DLT 150, dated 14.12.2000 Justice R.S.Sodhi of Delhi High Court]

>>Compensation payable by State for death of a person in custody:-

Custodial death is one of the worst crimes in a civilized society. The Govt. is liable to pay compensation for the death of a person in police custody or in jail. Precious rights guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India can not be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues, etc. except according to the procedure established by law. The fact that large number of cases were registered against the deceased ca not be a ground for his being assaulted which resulted in injuries and subsequently death. Compensation of Rs.2 lakhs awarded. [Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs Nasiruddin 89(2001) DLT 91 (D.B.)]

>>Economic offences:-

Economic offences should be tried speedily. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the country are not brought to book. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate designs with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the community, unlike murder which may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. [ State of Gujarat vs Mohan Lal AIR 1987 SC 1321 ]

>>Criminal proceedings initiated on a complaint to be quashed in certain cases:-

Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue even where the allegations in the complaint do not make out any offence, would tantamount to an abuse of the process of court and therefore, there can not be any dispute that in such case, power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and the proceedings can be quashed. [ Ashok Chaturvedi vs Shitul H.Chanchani VI(1998) SLT 665 ]

>>Criminal proceedings can be quashed even at preliminary stage in certain cases:-

The Court can not be used for any oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs Sambhajirao (1988) 1 SCC 692]

>>Magistrate has power to drop the proceedings against accused on re-consideration of the complaint:-

It is open to the accused to plead before the MM that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The MM may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the MM to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issueing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint or the very fact of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. [ K.M.Mathew vs State of Kerala AIR 1992 SC 2209 ]

[This Judgment has been disapproved by SC in another case in 2004]

>>Formation of opinion at the end of investigation to put the accused before Magistrate for trial can be only of SHO:-

The investigation ends with the formation of an opinion by the police as to whether, on the basis of material collected, a case is made out to place the accused before the MM for trial. The submission of either a chargesheet or a final report (for discharge of the accused) is dependent upon the nature of the opinion so formed. This opinion can be only of S.H.O. of the police station concerned. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof. [Abhinandan Jha vs Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 ]

>>Accused should not suffer due to lethargic and slow investigation:-

A lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence or inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the courts as the protector of the rights and personal liberty of the citizens will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. [State of A.P. vs P.V.Pavithran AIR 1990 SC 1266]

>>When there is inordinate delay in recording of statements of witnesses by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. and there are glaring infirmities in the investigation, then the accused could be released on bail even in a murder case. [ Ravindra Pratap Shah vs State of U.P. 1988(25) All.C.C. 70

>>Even a terrorist enjoys human rights:-

That the terrorist has violated human rights of innocent citizens may render him liable for punishment but it can not justify the violation of his human rights except in the manner permitted by law. Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information is violative of Article 21. [Ashok K.Johri vs. State of U.P. 1997 Cr.L.J. 643 ]

>>Police can not refuse to record FIR on the ground of jurisdiction:-

Refusal of police to record FIR on the ground that the place of occurrence falls not within his jurisdiction constitutes a dereliction of duty. The proper course is to record the FIR and then to forward it to proper police station. [ State of A.P. vs Punati Ramulu AIR 1993 SC 2644 ]

>>A police officer can not refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it on the ground that the offence did not take place in his area.[Satvinder Kaur vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi 82(1999) DLT 26 (SC)]

>>A person should be treated as innocent until proved guilty:-

Accused should be considered innocent till the charge leveled against him and his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. [Smt.Meena vs State of Maharashtra IV(2000) SLT 377]

>>Where the conclusion arrived by the court below is such as to shake the conscience, the Supreme Court would strike it down whether the judgment is one of conviction or acquittal. [Mahesh vs State of Delhi (1991) Cr.LJ 1703(SC)]

>>Right to information about Govt. activities:-

A citizen has a right to know about the activities of the State, the instrumentalities, the departments and the agencies of the State. The privilege of secrecy which existed in old times, namely that the State is not bound to disclose the facts to the citizens or that the State can not be compelled by the citizens to disclose the facts, does not survive now to the great extent. [L.K.Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1988 Raj 2]

>>Domiciliary visits by the police at night disturbing a person’s sleep infringe personal liberty under Artilce 21 of the Constitution and may not be constitutionally valid, except in the case of surveillance needed for the legitimate purpose of prevention of crime. ( flows from right under article 19(1)(d). kindly refer Khare vs State Delhi (1950) SCR 519, AIR 1953 SC 1295&1303, AIR 1975 SC 1278, AIR 1967 SC 110, AIR 1981 SC 760 (para 7,9,10), (1952) SCR 737

>>A suit lies against the Government for wrongs done by public servants in the course of business, such as death or injury caused to a person by police atrocities. (Art. 300) [Saheli vs Commisioner of Police AIR 1990 SC 513 ]

>>Attributes of a judge:-

A Judge is looked upon as an embodiment of justice. He is known second to Parmeshwar. The society which keeps him to such a high esteem and crowns him with distinct soberity expects him to live upto its cherished expectations. Courts are guardians of human rights. Common man looks upon the court as the protector. The MMs are required to be sensitized to the values of human dignity and to the restraint on power. They should not allow inhumane conduct by police. [Gopalan Charya vs State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 674, also AIR 995 SC 31]

Shoaibur Rahman Shoaib
LL.M Advocate


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: