Category: Cr P C

BILKIS BANO – In a case where the trial has been transferred by this Court from a court of competent jurisdiction of a State to a court in another State, it is still the Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced which is the appropriate Government which has the jurisdiction as well as competency to pass an order of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC – Therefore, it is not the Government of the State within whose territory the offence occurred or the convict is imprisoned which can assume the power of remission – Gujarat Government’s order granting remission to 11 convicts is quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Writ…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376 and 506 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – The appellant’s main argument was that the prosecution against him was an abuse of process of law – consensual relationship – the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the FIR against the appellant – Appeal Allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Appellate Court is unambiguously vested with the power to suspend implementation of the sentence or the order of conviction under appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, for which it is imperative to assign the reasons in writing – In order to suspend the conviction of an individual, the primary factors that are to be looked into, would be the peculiar facts and circumstances of that specific case, where the failure to stay such a conviction would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AFJAL ANSARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UP — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Quashing of FIR – Mixing hydrocarbons in different proportions by using mixing machines create a mixture that looks exactly like petrol and diesel – Non-production an expert’s report -Unless there was a material forming part of the charge­sheet to show the nature of the liquid, no offence is made out – Now, it is too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years – FIR quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cr P C – Section 482 – Second petition – Maintainability – A second petition not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of filing of the first petition – Filing of the charge sheet and cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order – That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHISHAM LAL VERMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar And Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused – If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered – Power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession of bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 457, 380 and 506 – Lurking house trespass or house breaking at night, theft and criminal intimidation – FIR quashed by High Court – Appeal against – Assets and belongings inside the shop in question were in joint possession of the appellant as also the respondent and there was an injunction granted by the Competent Court that the assets and belongings of the shop in question would be preserved, removal of the same without consent or knowledge of the appellant would amount to theft – There was breaking open of the locks of the premises wherein the property was stored for the purposes of theft – All these offences are cognizable in nature and basic ingredients being there in the FIR, the High Court clearly erred in quashing the FIR – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUCHIR RASTOGI — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC. @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Examination of an accused – – But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused – Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…