Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006, by way of which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Kottayam dated 3.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2005.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:A. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a vehicle which was driven by Praveen (deceased). He was also related to the appellant. Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife, and the appellant was informed of this development by his Manager, Aji. The appellant reached Palluruthy, and made enquiries about the situation from Praveen and others, and his relatives tried to resolve the aforesaid matter. In the presence of other r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1774 of 2010 R. Shaji Appellant Versus State of Kerala Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2006, by way of which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Kottayam dated 3.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.145 of 2005.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: A. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a vehicle which was driven by Praveen (deceased). He was also related to the appellant. Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the appellants wife, and the appellant was informed of this development by his Manager, Aji. The appellant reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Maharashtra and senior officers in the Department of Prisons, Government of Maharashtra against a common judgment and order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby a batch of criminal writ petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed, transfer of the respondents-prisoners from Arthur Road Jail in Bombay to three other jails in the State of Maharashtra held to be illegal and the appellants directed to transfer the prisoners back to the jail at Bombay. The High Court has expressed the view that jail authorities having used force against undertrial prisoners for no fault of theirs and since such force was used for extraneous reasons and was excessive, the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra shall initiate a disciplinary inquiry against all those involved in the incident. The High Court has further held that if need be in addition to de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1881; JT2009(7)SC566; 2009(5)KarLJ257; 2009(7)SCALE6; (2009)6SCC61; 2009AIRSCW3378
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Learned Sessions Judge have found the accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the `IPC').2. Background facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows:On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was done to death in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. According to 'the investigation reports by about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very same day parents of the deceased came to the matrimonial home of the deceased after hearing the news of death of their daughter Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed the same to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2622; 2006CriLJ3621; II(2006)DMC334SC; JT2006(6)SC619; 2006(4)KLT460(SC); 2006(4)MPHT327; 2006(7)SCALE79; (2006)6SCC277
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.3. Factual background in a nutshell is as under:On 16.4.2003 appellant No. 1-Bhupinder Singh was married to Smt. Kamaljit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). On 2.8.2004 she was found dead. On the allegation that the appellants had committed murder of the deceased, First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged by the Respondent Jarnail Singh and on that basis appellants 1 and 2 (Bhupinder and Balwinder) were arrested on 5.8.2004. Subsequently on 7.8.2004 appellant No. 3 (Kanwaljit Kaur) was arrested. Prayer for bail was made before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Batala on 4.11.2004 who refused to grant bail to the appellants. Their stand before the Court in essence was that since challan was not filed in time, they were entitled to bail in terms of Section 167(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1910; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)700; 2001ALLMR(Cri)713(SC); 2001(49)BLJR1330; 2001CriLJ1832; 2001(2)Crimes150(SC); (2001)2GLR1148; JT2001(4)SC262; 2001(3)SCALE29; (2001)5SCC4
PATTANAIK, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this Appeal by grant of Special Leave the question that arises for consideration is when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder. In the case in hand, the accused after surrendering himself in the Court was remanded to judicial custody by order of the Magistrate on 17.6.2000. A case has been instituted against him under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short 'MPID Act'). The period of 60 days for filing of charge sheet was completed on 16.8.2000. On the next day i.e. 17.8.2000, an application for being released on bail was filed before the Magistrate alleging that non-filing of challan within 60 days entitles the accused to be released on bail under prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC610; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)248; 1998(46)BLJR161; 1997CriLJ743; 1996(4)Crimes233(SC); (1997)2GLR1631; JT1997(1)SC1; RLW1997(1)SC94; 1996(9)SCALE298; (1997)1SCC416; [1996]S
..... before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and section 57 echoes clause (2) of article 22 of the constitution of india. there are some other provisions also like sections 53 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police. whenever a person dies in custody of the police, section 176 requires the magistrate to hold an enquiry into the cause of death. ..... certain aberrations here and there notwithstanding. the police powers of arrest, detention and interrogation in england were examined in depth by sir cyril philips committee-'report of a royal commission on criminal procedure' (command-papers 8092 of 1981). the report of the royal commission is, instructive. in regard to the power of arrest, the report recommended that the power to arrest without a warrant must be ..... serious matter.21. joinder kumar's case (supra) involved arrest of a practising lawyer who had been called to the police station in connection with a case under inquiry on 7.1.94. on not receiving any satisfactory account of his whereabouts the family members of the detained lawyer preferred a petitioner in the nature of habeas corpus ..... appeal was allowed and the acquittal of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 was set aside. the respondents were convicted for various offences including the offence under section 304 part 11/34 ipc and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine ranging from rs. 20,000 to rs. 50,000. the fine was directed to be paid to the heirs of nathu .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)265; 1993(41)BLJR75; 1992CriLJ3712; JT1992(6)SC21; 1992(2)SCALE523; (1992)4SCC272; [1992]Supp1SCR545
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Can bail granted under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereafter called 'the Code') for failure to complete the investigation within the period prescribed thereunder be cancelled on the mere presentation of the challan (charge-sheet) at any time thereafter? This is the question which we are called upon to answer in the backdrop of the following facts.3. A complaint was lodged against the appellant and 8 others at Miraj City Police Station, District Sangli alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, in regard to an incident which took place at about 11 p.m. on 8th September, 1990. The appellant was arrested in that connection on the next day i.e. 9th September, 1990. The appellant thereafter made an application before the Sessions Judge, Sangli for being enlarged on bail That application was rejected. The appellant approached the High Court but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC439; 1983CriLJ839; 1983(1)Crimes797(SC); 1983(1)SCALE274; (1983)2SCC372; [1983]2SCR537
D.A.Desai, J. 1. Respondents Lakshmi Brahman and Naval Garg were suspected of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. Both of them surrendered before the Magistrate on November 2, 1974 and were taken into custoday. The investigation was then in progress. The investigating officer failed to submit the charge-sheet against them within a period of 60 days as contemplated by Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of 1973 Code prior to its amendment by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1978 which enlarges the period from 60 to 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. In this case we are concerned with the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 prior to its amendment in 1978. It appears that the Investigating Officer failed to submit the charge-sheet within the prescribed period and according to the High Court till ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC179a; 1978CriLJ129; (1978)1SCC118; [1978]2SCR358
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court cancelling the orders of bail of each of the appellants passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. They were all arrested in pursuance of the First Information report lodged by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 10-6-1977 in what is now described as the 'Sunder Murder Case'. The report at that stage did not disclose names of accused persona and referred to the involvement of 'some Delhi Police Personnel'. Sunder was said to be a notorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder and dacoity alleged to have been committed by him in Delhi and elsewhere. It is stated that by May, 1976 Sunder became a 'security risk for Mr. Sanjay Gandhi'. It appears Sunder was arrested at Jaipur on 31-8-1976 and was in police custody in Delhi between, 2nd of November, 1976 and 28th of November, 1976 under the orders of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magis...
Tag this Judgment!