Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012

By

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 Case Summary

Facts

  1. An FIR was registered on 23.03.1997 after a statement under S.161 of Crpc made before the Dy. SP by the victim Pushpa in which she stated that the appellants Ajay Kumar Parmar and his father had raped her on 10.03.1997. 
  2. On an application made by Pushpa, as she was unsatisfied with the investigation of the police, the CJM, Sirohi directed the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj to take her statement under S.164 of the CrPC.
  3. The plaintiff in her statement under S.164 before the Judicial Magistrate stated that the FIR and the statement recorded before the Dy. SP was false and no offence had been committed. Therefore the Magistrate acquitted the appellant.

Case History

  1. The Session Court while allowing the revision petition filed by the Public Prosecutor reversed the order of the Magistrate on two grounds:- 
    1. Section 342 and 376 of IPC are triable by the Session Court, therefore no Magistrate can acquit the appellant on any ground, he is bound to transfer the case to the Session Court.
    2. The statement of the plaintiff cannot be relied on as she had not been produced before the Magistrate by the Police.
  2. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
  3. Therefore the appeal came here.

Issue 

  1. Whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to acquit the accused-appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The statement before the Magistrate under Section 164, CrPC by a person other than the accused can be recorded only when the person is produced by the police, as observed in "Jogendra Nahak and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (1999)".
  2. In the present case, no police had produced the prosecutrix before the Magistrate.
  3. The person making a statement before the Magistrate shall be personally known by the Magistrate or identified by any other person, as observed in "Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001".
  4. The committal court is not empowered to decide whether a prima facie case has been made or not. If it does so as was earlier provided in S.207A of the Old Code, it will go beyond the legislative intent, as observed in Sanjay Gandhi v. UoI (1978).
  5. A Magistrate can not proceed with trial of an offence exclusively triable by the Session Court and acquit the accused.
  6. The Magistrate cannot consider the evidence which has been produced in the defence by the appellant, he can only consider the documents which has been submitted by the investigating agency along with the chargesheet.
  7. The Magistrate can refuse under S.190, CrPC to take cognizance of the offence only if he is satisfied that the complaint, case diary and statements of witnesses do not make out any offence.
  8. It is necessary to give notice to the complainant before dropping the proceedings, which has not been given in the present case.

Decision

  1. Appeal dismissed
  2. The judgment of the revisional court and the High Court is upheld. 

Summary

An FIR was registered for an offence under S.376 which is exclusively triable by the Session Court. The Judicial Magistrate denied taking cognizance of the offence and also acquitted the accused-appellants after taking the statement of the prosecutrix without identifying her under S.164 in which the prosecutrix had resiled from her earlier statements. The Apex Court while referring to various decisions of earlier cases held that the Magistrate is not empowered to decide whether a prima facie case has been made or not. If he does so as was earlier provided in S.207A of the Old Code, it will go beyond the legislative intent. S.209 of the CrPC provides that the Magistrate shall commit the case which is exclusively triable by the Session Court to the Session Court.


 


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more