இ.த.ச. பிரிவு 506(ii)–அச்சுறுத்தும் வார்த்தை என்றால் ?

ஒருவரால் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ள வார்த்தையானது உண்மையான அச்சுறுத்தம் அர்த்தை அளிக்கும் விதமாகவும், அந்த வார்த்தையால் மற்றொருவர் உண்மையிலேயே அச்சுறுத்தும் உணர்வைப் பெற்றிருக்க வேண்டும்.

மேற்படி வார்த்தையானது ,

1. பொதுவாக பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுவரும் வார்த்தைகளாக இருக்கவேண்டும்.

2. ஒருவரை நோக்கி பயன்படுத்தி இருக்க வேண்டும்

3. உண்மையாக அச்சுறுத்தல் அளிக்கும் விதமாக இருக்க வேண்டும்

4. உயிருக்கே அச்சுறுத்தல் ஏற்படும் வகையில் இருக்க வேண்டும்

5. காவல்துறையின் பாதுகாப்பு வேண்டும் என்று புகாரில் கோரி இருக்கவேண்டும்.

Read More

4:26 AM | 0 comments

Whether accused can make conversation with his lawyer during interrogation by police?

We may, however, at this stage refer to another decision of this Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0157/1997 : (1997) 1 SCC 416. In this case, the Court, extensively considered the issues of arrest or detention in the backdrop of Articles 21, 22 and 32 of the Constitution and made a number of directions to be followed as preventive measures in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf. The direction at serial number 10 in paragraph 35 is as follows:
(10). The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
28. Strictly speaking the aforesaid direction does not apply to the case of the Respondent, because he being on bail cannot be described as an arrestee. But, it is stated on behalf of the Respondent that he suffers from heart disease and on going to the DRI office, in pursuance to the summons issued by the authorities, he had suffered a heart attack. It is also alleged that his brother was subjected to torture and the Respondent himself was threatened with third degree methods. The medical condition of the Respondent was accepted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and that forms one of the grounds for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Taking a cue, therefore, from the direction made in DK Basu and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the Respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. The advocate or the person authorized by the Respondent may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the Respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 628 of 2008)
Decided On: 05.07.2011

Senior Intelligence Officer
Vs.
Jugal Kishore Samra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ

Read More

4:17 AM | 0 comments

What are rights of legal heirs of deceased convicted accused of dishonour of cheque?

The legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine or to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence. We have, therefore, allowed the application filed by the legal heirs to prosecute this appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2012

Decided On: 19.09.2019

M. Abbas Haji  Vs.  T.N. Channakeshava

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 606

Read More

4:16 AM | 0 comments

சட்டம் சாராத ஒப்புதல் வாக்குமூலம் - Extra judicial confession

கைது செய்யப்பட்டதற்கு பிறகு கிராம நிர்வாக அலுவலர் முன்னிலையில் சட்டம் சாராத ஒப்புதல் வாக்குமூலத்தை கருத்தில் கொள்ளக்கூடாது

- 2019 SCC –online SC 90 - சக்கரை எ சக்கிரவர்த்தி எதிர் மாநில அரசு

- 2006 6 SCC 498 - தங்கவேலு எதிர் தமிழ்நாடு அரசு

Read More

4:09 AM | 0 comments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 302 — Permission to conduct prosecution — To complainant or victim — Parameters for:

Though Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere asking but victim has a right to assist court in a trial before Magistrate. Magistrate may consider as to whether victim is in a position to assist court and as to whether the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by victim. On satisfaction of such facts, Magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to grant permission to victim to take over inquiry of pendency before Magistrate. [Amir Hamza Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra, (2019) 8 SCC 387]

Read More

3:09 AM | 0 comments

Whether accused can seek anticipatory bail when Magistrate has issued arrest warrant against him?

A Magistrate who issues a warrant knows fully why the accused is avoiding to remain present before the Court and non-appearance causes obstruction in the smooth working of the Court. It is a hurdle in speedy disposal of the matter and therefore the Magistrate issues non-bailable or bailable warrant. On number of occasions, a Magistrate is constrained to issue non-bailable warrant to compel a person to appear before the Court as the trial is at a standstill for want of appearance. To remove this stagnation, the appearance is a must. Though pre-arrest bail can be granted under section 438, however, it cannot be granted in any or each and every impending arrest in non-bailable offence, which is pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate for any other purpose but not under section 204 of Cr. P.C. Thus, anticipatory bail cannot be sought when warrant is issued during the trial due to non-attendance of the accused. If all the sub-sections of Section 438 are taken into account, the very language of the statute compels this construction. While granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the four factors including the antecedants of the applicant. There is a provision of interim bail, so also it is obligatory for the Court to give notice to the Public Prosecutor and hear the prosecutor. However, if the warrant of arrest is issued by the Judicial  Magistrate for non-attendance of a particular person, then it is not obligatory on the said Magistrate to hear the prosecution. There is no such provision of interim bail available while cancelling the warrant issued under section 70 of Cr. P.C. Moreover, while granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to see that the applicant shall be available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. Thus, it is amply clear that the anticipatory bail, which is an extraordinary provision which protects the liberty of an individual can be used before he is taken into custody by the police first time after the registration of an offence against him. Once he is taken in custody, this power is not available to the Court and also cannot be invoked. Thus, within the purport of Section 438 of Cr. P.C. grant of pre-arrest bail is not available to the Sessions Court or the High Court when warrant of arrest issued is by the Magistrate except warrant of arrest issued under section 204 of Cr. P.C. Under section 204 of Cr. P.C. the Magistrate takes cognizance and thereafter issues the warrant, so this is the first instance that the person is booked for some offence, which may be either by the police or by the Magistrate.
  Thus, arrest pursuant to warrant of arrest issued under section 70 of the Code has wider import than the arrest apprehended under section 438 of the Code. It needs to be clarified that such order of issuance of warrant of arrest by the Magistrate can be challenged before the High  court under section 482 of the Code or by filing Writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, but not under section 438 of the Cr. P.C.

Bombay High Court

Himanshu @ Hemant Rajendra Bhatt vs The State Of Maharashtra

on 30 April, 2014
Bench: Mridula Bhatkar

Citation; 2015(2) MHLJ 84

<< Criminal case, Arrest Warrant>>

Read More

3:05 AM | 0 comments

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A.V. Martin v/s. Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in MANU/MH/0074/1998 : 1998 (1) Bom. C.R. 631, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding the veracity of the contents therein.

24. In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following observation made in paragraph 6:-

In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake.

25. In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra), the following observation was made:-

The learned trial Judge curiously declined to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Read More

3:02 AM | 0 comments