Blogs about: Legal Issues
Featured Blog
sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act NOT APPLICABLE IN SEARCH OF BAGS ETC., = But, a significant one, in the case at hand 32 bags of poppy straw powder weighing 64 Kgs. had been seized from two bags. It has not been seized from the person of the accused-appellant. It has been established by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the bags belonged to the appellant. “Thus, applying the interpretation of the word “search of person” as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search conducted by the investigating officer and the evidence collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant as regards the non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act.”
Page 1ReportableIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1327 of 2010Ram Swaroop … AppellantVersusState (Govt. NCT) of Delhi…RespondentJ U D G M E N… more →
advocatemmmohan
Alec Baldwin Files Police Complaint After Photographer 'Assault'
wrote 14 hours ago: Alec Baldwin has filed a police complaint against a photographer following a street clash in New Yor … more →
sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act NOT APPLICABLE IN SEARCH OF BAGS ETC., = But, a significant one, in the case at hand 32 bags of poppy straw powder weighing 64 Kgs. had been seized from two bags. It has not been seized from the person of the accused-appellant. It has been established by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the bags belonged to the appellant. “Thus, applying the interpretation of the word “search of person” as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search conducted by the investigating officer and the evidence collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant as regards the non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act.”
wrote 22 hours ago: Page 1ReportableIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1327 … more →
I told you Amanda Bynes shaved her head again, and other updates on her arrest.
wrote 1 day ago: I knew it! Homegirl is looney-fuckin’-tunes. Dye your hair, shave your head. Wait for it to gr … more →
Jodi Arias Update: 5/24/13
— 2 comments
wrote 1 day ago: Jodi Arias Update: 5/24/13 I’ve been stuck on HLN watching this case in court for days now. Se … more →
Sex - is it a question of age?
wrote 1 day ago: Did you hear about the case of an 18 year old former student in Florida who was charged, in February … more →
Obama on "Just [drone] War" - the long awaited speech (and six lingering problems)
wrote 1 day ago: “So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defence … more →
Amanda Bynes got her ass arrested and hospitialised because she ditched her bong out the window, AFTER letting the cops into her apartment. Of course.
— 2 comments
wrote 1 day ago: For actual weeks there was no news on the Amanda front and now homegirl can’t even keep it tog … more →
Strategic Book Publishing: Florida AG Set to Begin Trial?
wrote 1 day ago: An anonymous source has indicated to TWA that the Florida Attorney General may begin a trial against … more →
Before you buy a condo unit
wrote 2 days ago: If you’re on the edge of buying a condo, here are some things I learned from this experience. … more →
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition-Seeking investigation by CBI-Of a case, investigation whereof already conducted by railway Police and Army authorities-Maintainability of-Held: Not maintainable-An aggrieved person has no right to claim investigation of a case by any particular agency of his choice-He can only claim proper investigation-Alternative remedy of approaching u/ss. 36, 154 (3), 156 (3) and 200 Cr. P.C. is available to the person, if his FIR is not registered by the police-Availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition-But if available, High Court should not ordinarily interfere-Supreme Court and High Court also have power under Article 136 or Article 226 if the Constitution to order investigation by the CBI-But that should be done only in rare and exceptional case-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 36, 154 (3), 156(3), 200 and 482-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 156 (3)-Power under-Of Magistrate-Scope of-Discussed. Doctrines/Principles-Doctrine of implied power. The son of the appellant was an Officer in the Indian Army. His dead body was found at Mathura Railway Station. G.R.P. investigated the matter and gave its report stating that the death was caused due to accident or suicide. Army officials held a Court of Inquiry. It was concluded therein that the deceased had committed suicide at the railway track. The appellant made a representation to the Chief of the Army Staff alleging that it was a case of murder and not suicide. As a result another Court of Inquiry was held. Wherein it was concluded that it was a case of suicide. The appellant then filed a writ petition, seeking direction that the matter be ordered to be investigated the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Citation: 2008 AIR 907 ,2007(12 )SCR1100,2008(2 )SCC409 ,2007(13 )SCALE693 ,2007(13 )JT466-Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI. The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption, cannot justify a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army authorities as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. [Paras 34 and 10] CBI and ANOTHER v. Rajesh Gandhi and ANOTHER, (1997) Cr.L.J 63, relied on. 1.2. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station, his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Para 26] 2.1. If an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. [Paras 11 and 15] Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER, JT (2006) 1 SC 10; Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, JT (2007) 10 SC 585 ; CBI v. State of Rajasthan and ANOTHER, (2001) 3 SCC 333; R.P. Kapur v. S.P. Singh, AIR (1961) SC 1117; and State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna, AIR (1980) SC 326, relied on. 2.2. It is clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and, if the Magistrate is satisfied, he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass other order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The words `as abovementioned' occurring in s.190 Cr.P.C. obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station. The Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). [Paras 13, 14 and 27] Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and ANOTHER, distinguished. 2.3. The power vested in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report under Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report. State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna, AIR (1980) SC 326, relied on. 2.4. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. [Paras 18, 19 and 21] ITO, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR (1969) SC 430; Union of India v. Paras Laminates, AIR (1991) SC 696, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd; AIR (1996) SC 646; Chief Executive Officer AND Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board v. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu, [1996] 11 SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR (1996) SC 3527, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society, 2003 (2) SCC 412 and Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR (1986) SC 984, relied on. Statutory Construction (3rd Edition) by Crawford, referred to. 2.5. Although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, it is wide enough to include all such incidental powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. There is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., they are implied in the above provision. [Paras 17 and 24] 3. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. [Para 28] 4. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226, as the case may be, to order investigation by the CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them. [Para 31] CBI v. State of Rajasthan and ANOTHER, [2001] 3 SCC 333; Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services U.P. and OTHERS v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and ANOTHER, [2002] 5 SCC 521, relied on. 5. It is not clear whether the report by G.R.P. Mathura was accepted by the Magistrate or not. If the report has been accepted by the Magistrate and no appeal/revision was filed against the order of the Magistrate accepting the police report, then that is the end of the matter. However, if the Magistrate has not yet passed any order on the police report, he may do so in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. [Para 35] Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant,.
wrote 2 days ago: http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1685 of 2007 PETITION … more →
Radio Interview.... "Drones: Warfare in the 21st Century"
wrote 2 days ago: A couple of months ago, I had the rather nervous task of being interviewed by ABC (Australian Broadc … more →
A person having 100 per cent burns can make a statement, and a certificate of fitness provided by a doctor is not a condition precedent for placing reliance upon a dying declaration.= In our opinion, as the defence did not put any question either to the executive magistrate, or to the I.O., or to the doctors who had examined her or conducted the post-mortem, with respect to whether any part of the thumb had skin on it or not, as in both the dying declarations, ridges and curves had been clearly found to exist, we do not see any reason to dis-believe the version of events provided by the executive magistrate and the I.O., who had recorded the dying declarations. No suggestion was made to either of them in this regard, nor was any explanation furnished with respect to why these two independent persons who had recorded the dying declarations, would have deposed against the respondents accused. In the event that both of them had found the deceased to be in a fit physical and mental condition to make a statement, there exists no reason to disbelieve the same.
wrote 3 days ago: Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. … more →
Murder case = i) As per site plan (Ex.P-9) mustard crop, standing on the land in dispute was destroyed by the tractor. ii) As many as 14 member of the complainant party sustained injuries. Veerpal died as a result of injuries received by him. iii) Member of complainant party had gone to the land in question unarmed and asked the accused party not to disturb mustard crop whereas accused party had gone with lethal weapons. iv) There is chequered history of litigation between the complainant party and the accused party. v) Accused Sita Ram and Ranveer had guns whereas accused Ranveer, Yogendra and Balla had kattas (country made pistols) and they indiscriminately opened fire at the members of complainant party. vi) According to Prahlad Singh I.O. (PW.29) cross case bearing FIR No.254/99 under sections 447, 323, 341, 147 and 148 IPC was registered against the members of accused party. Ghambhir Singh (appellant) sustained simple injuries that were incorporated in injury report (Ex.D.15).” 12. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly rejected the contention of self-defence that had been raised, and acquitted some of the convicted accused, giving them the benefit of doubt. In light of such a fact-situation, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
wrote 3 days ago: Page 1NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 … more →
African Trophy Hunter Indicted for Violating Endangered Species Act
wrote 3 days ago: Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, May 22, 2013 African … more →
Turbulent career of Dennis Burke hits wall
— 11 comments
wrote 3 days ago: USAToday runs a brief exposé on former Arizona federal prosecutor Dennis Burke, the beleaguered Jane … more →
STATEMENT BY HON. MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, H. ONEK ON THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES OF THE DAILY MONITOR PUBLICATIONS AND THE RED PEPPER PUBLICATIONS
wrote 3 days ago: 1) The on-going search by the Police of premises of the Daily Monitor publications and the Red Peppe … more →
specific performance of an agreement of re-conveyance of the suit land. is not maintainable =The District Court also held that Ex-18, the alleged agreement of re-conveyance did not mention that there was a loan transaction between the parties and that Ex-19, the sale deed was not to be acted upon. It did not mention the date and period within which the suit land was to be re-conveyed after payment of the loan amount. Therefore, the case that Ex-19 was a nominal sale deed cannot be accepted. = Ex-19 is a genuine sale deed. It clearly speaks of an out and out sale. We have stated that Ex-18 is not an agreement to re- convey the land on repayment of loan. The sale deed [Ex-19] is clearly worded leaving no scope of ambiguity. So far as Ex-18 is concerned, it is so worded as not to establish any link with Ex-19. It does not speak of any loan transaction at all. Though there is no ambiguity in Ex-19 and we are certain that the transaction in question is a genuine sale transaction, to lend support to our conclusion we may touch upon the surrounding circumstances. If Ex-18 was to be an agreement for re-conveyance, it would not have been titled as 'Receipt'. It would have been signed by the original plaintiff and the defendant. It is pertinent to note that it is signed only by the defendant. It is executed on a simple paper. It does not state within what time the amount was to be repaid and the agreement of repurchase was to be executed. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination, original plaintiff has clearly admitted that Ex- 18 was executed before execution of sale deed [Ex-19]. Hence, the original plaintiff's case that the defendant insisted that he would lend money to him only if he would execute nominal sale deed and, therefore, the nominal sale deed was executed and the loan was advanced, does not stand to reason. The District Court has rightly said that at the most it could be said that Ex-18 culminated into a genuine sale deed [Ex-19]. The original plaintiff's case that the transaction of sale was followed by agreement for re-transfer is not substantiated. It is also hit by Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act which this Court analyzed in Chunchun Jha and stated that if sale and agreement for re-purchase are embodied in separate deeds then the transaction cannot be a mortgage whether the documents are contemporaneously executed or not. Here we clearly have two separate documents. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Raj Kishore v. Prem Singh[3]. The High Court, therefore, clearly erred in holding that there was an agreement for re-conveyance and the original plaintiff was entitled to specific performance thereof.- In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/7/2004 is set aside. The judgment and order dated 12/3/1986 passed by the District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.130 of 1983 is restored.
wrote 3 days ago: ‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2006 DAS … more →
set off of the period of pre-trial detention against the period of sentence is concerned, Section 428 of the Code is not attracted to the cases of persons convicted by the court-martial to undergo imprisonments.- sentence Set off not applicable to court martial laws= As he is in illegal detention because he had already spent one and half months in custody before the conviction was recorded by the court-martial. the petitioner, an employee of Indian Air Force, who has been found guilty of the offence under Section 39(a) of The Air Force Act, 1950 (for brevity “the Act”) and has been awarded sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months along with other punishments by order dated 15.3.2013 which has been affirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 161(1) of the said enactment, has prayed for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release him= In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the pre-trial detention cannot be set off against the sentence of imprisonment passed by the court-martial for the offence under Section 39(a) which has been affirmed under Section 161(1) of the Act and the period of sentence shall commence from the date when the original proceeding was signed by the Presiding Officer. Thus, there is no illegal detention warranting issue of writ of habeas corpus.= Section 169-A to avoid hardship to the persons convicted by the court-martial. The said provision is as follows: - “169-A. Period of custody undergone by the officer or person to be set off against the imprisonment.— When a person or officer subject to this Act is sentenced by a court martial to a term of imprisonment, not being an imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period spent by him in civil or military custody during investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of order of such sentence, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed upon him, and the liability of such person or officer to undergo imprisonment on such order of sentence shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed upon him.”- Section 151(1) and (3): - “151. Commencement of sentence. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) every term of imprisonment or detention awarded in pursuance of this Act shall be reckoned as commencing on the day on which the sentence was awarded. (2) .................. (3) Whenever any offender is sentenced by a court-martial to a term of imprisonment, in pursuance of this Act, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period spent by him in civil or naval custody during investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case, and before the date of order of such sentence, shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed upon him, and the liability of such offender to undergo imprisonment on such order of sentence shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed upon him.”=Though such amendments have been made by the Parliament under the 1950 Act and the 1957 Act, yet no such amendment has been incorporated in the Air Force Act, 1950. The aforesaid provisions, as we perceive, have been incorporated in both the statutes to avoid hardship to persons convicted by the court-martial. Similar hardship is suffered by the persons who are sentenced to imprisonment under various provisions of the Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid amendment in the other two enactments and regard being had to the purpose of the amendment and the totality of the circumstances, we think it apt to recommend the Union of India to seriously consider to bring an amendment in the Act so that the hardships faced by the persons convicted by the court-martial are avoided.
wrote 4 days ago: Page 1 Accurate representation of Governor’s House in Portsmouth, where court-martial o … more →
Section 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code= the victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams of “Spring of Life” and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the “Torment of Winter”. When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers. Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court. The mitigating factors put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are meant to invite mercy but we are disposed to think that the factual matrix cannot allow the rainbow of mercy to magistrate. Our judicial discretion impels us to maintain the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and, 22Page 23 hence, we sustain the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the High Court. 23. Ex consequenti, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed.
wrote 4 days ago: Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. … more →
